Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer!

The above is from a Word file of his seminar that is no longer online but was when this file was created.

Needless the say the claims being made here are all false. For heaven's sake the cytochrome c closest to humans is a chimp. In fact human and chimp cytochrome cs could not be more similar since they are identical. So how a sunflower's cytochrome c could closer than a chimp is rather hard to imagine. But in fact, a sunflower's version is more different than a human's than any animal's version. Just as one would expect if evolution is true.

Lets compare cytochrome c sequences for various organisms. Each letter represents a different amino acid. V for example stands for valine. ( Here is a table.) Cytochrome c, like any protein, is a sequence of amino acids strung together. Similarity is determined how close the sequences are. Non-technical readers might think it as how close their "spelling" is to each other. Spaces are have no signficance, they are added to make it easier to read the data. Now here are the cytochrome c sequences for some organisms.

Corn:
asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a

Sunflower:
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

Human:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Common Chimpanzee:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Rabbit:
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne

Bullfrog:
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk

Now if evolution is true, than one should have some expection of the data shown above. Chimp cytochrome c should be closest to human followed by rabbit, bullfrog, and finally the two plants. That is, of course, what we see. If the sunflower really did have the closest cytochrome c to humans than evolutionists would have some serious explaining to do. But the data agrees with evolution rather well.

So why does Kent Hovind claim that a sunflower has the closest cytochrome c to humans? It shows that he has a serious honesty problem. A problem that is rather common in creationist circles. It also illustrates that if evolution was false, a type of observation which would blow evolution out of the water. Hovind's sunflower claim is clearly not possible if evolution is true. Thousand of similiar possibilities also could falsify evolution. They are not being made. It almost certainly is because evolution is true.

Click here for a chart showing percent differences between the cytochrome c sequences of various organisms.
Click here for some more sequences.

This particular lie of Kent Hovind is yet another version of a set of lies that the creationists have been telling for decades. A set of lies that repeated by many creationists. That their claims are false has been mentioned to them many times.

Answers in Genesis is making a very similar claim. Just replace "cytochrome c" with "lysozyme" and "sunflower" with "chicken." It is an old creationist claim. In their own words, "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal." This was written by one of AiG's stars, Jonathan D. Sarfati, in this article. Again human and chimp lysozyme is identical. Human and chicken lysozyme differs at 51 out of 130 possitions. See The Bullfrog Affair. Since this file was created Sarfati dropped the claim and replaced it with yet another false claim that is dealt with in previous link. Sarfati also states "The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of a chicken that that of a viper (their fellow reptiles)." Well I certainly hope that the a chain of hemoglobin of a crocodile and a chicken are closer to each than between a crocodile and a viper. That is exactly what one would expect if evolution was true. Sarfati is taking advantage of a misconception most people have. That misconception is a naïve idea of what organisms are more closely related by evolution. Two reptiles are more closely related too each other than to a non-reptile—? Wrong. What really counts which organisms have to most recent common ancestor. Crocodiles have a more recent common ancestor with a chiken (or any bird for that matter) than it does with a viper (or any snake). The more recent the common ancestor, the less time a protein has to accumulate changes. Thus this fact that Sarfati claims is contrary to evolution is what one should expect if evolution is true. Sarfati is either being dishonest or he is both incompetent and poorly read in a field he is attacking.

Duane Gish is probably the most infamous for making such claims. He has for over two decades claimed that their exists a protein which is the bullfrog's version is closer to the human version than the chimp version. This would clearly rule out Darwinian evolution. And yet two decades of requests that he actually state which protein it is have not generated an answer. The Bullfrog Affair gives a lot of detail on Gish's lie. Also see this and that. It should also be noted that Gish has also made the chicken lysozyme claim debunked above.

I should also quickly mention that the Hovind quote at the top of this page also includes other falsehoods. Several originated with Gary Parker who is with Answers in Genesis and formerly with the Institute of Creation Research. Again I will refer you to The Bullfrog Affair. Keep in mind that article was written in 1990. Hovind's claims were shown to be false a long time ago. And yet he and other creationists continue to repeat these lies again and again. I say the reason is the evidence is so against the creationists that they have no choice: they either have to lie or concede that the evidence is against them. Finally Hovind claimed that the octopus has the eye closest to a human eye. Another web article pointed out that that claim contradicts another Hovind claim. As Shakespeare wrote, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Also see:
Sequences and Common Descent - Debunks another false creationist cytochrome c claim.
Compelling Data for Common Descent - More advanced treatment than the above.
Invariant Cytochrome C Sequences Disprove Evolution? - Debunks yet another false creationist cytochrome c claim.
Creationist Lies and Blunders - I deal with many other creationist falsehoods.

harlequin4ATcox.net
Subtract two from the above number to email.