Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
1) Whilst I would agree that it is not mathematical, morphological characteristics were used extensively in compiling taxonomic trees (In fact that is precisely the meaning of taxonomy) which have incidently, broadly coincided with more modern phylogenetic trees.
A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.
2) It can if you are looking at the two for more than just a visual comparison, for example someone has already shown on this thread the morphological differences between modern birds and archeopterix, it may have looked like a bird but there are important differences that mark it out as a transitional species.
On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.
Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion.
3) The problem you have is that this is a really good example of evidence of common ancestry.
No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.
4) This is simply not correct, for example humans and chimps share more or less identical DNA sequences coding for cytochrome C and it is generally true that sequences are similar in more closely related species than in species with similar performance requirements (for example bat cytochrome C is more similar to human than to bird) which is what we would expect if morphological differences where what drove the difference (as you seem to be suggesting)
If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor.
5) Firstly it is important to object to the use of 'higher forms', from an evolutionary viewpoint we are not a 'higher form'. You also seem to misunderstand hierarchy, there isn't an evolutionary 'hierarchy', there is a taxonomic heirarchy but that goes the wrong way for your point. Presumably because you are viewing evolution with a theistic bias to assume that humans are some sort of pinnacle of evolution.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.
6) No, we are more closely related to fish than lampreys, you have to go much further back along the evolutionary tree to find a common ancestor between us and lampreys than to find one between us and fish. Again you have no source for your figures above.
Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.
Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.
7) Again you have no source for this data? Because you are admitting that sequences for cytochrome C vary in your examples and then claiming that they are all equidistant to fish cytochrome C. By what measure are they equidistant if they vary? I suspect that your data is not from a scientific study since it disagrees with every thing I have read on the subject and doesn't appear to be internally consistant.
On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.
8) This is because you assume that evolution is a process with a destination and that there is a hierarchy. They are an intermediate species in as much as they have shared features with two major orders and it is not clear which they are more closely related to.
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.
9) They are intermediate forms found, be honest and admit that you have decided to discount the examples given to fit your biases.
10) You have not disproven evolution, there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93) and it is a fundamental protein so we would expect that heredity would largely account for differences in the coding, i.e. that it would be evidence of the relatedness of different organisms. Given the huge number of ways of coding this protein you would expect it to be radically different in different species if we weren't related. This isn't what we see and you haven't provided any evidence to prove that what you are claiming is true.
