The genetic link to chimps from humans is something I would question.
Why would you question it? Do you have evidence that scientists are not aware of? If not, then the conclusion stands.
Similarity does not equate common ancestry. That is an assumption brought to the table beforehand.
That is not the assumption. It is the
pattern of similarity which evidences common ancestry and evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. It is the pattern of similarity we should is if evolution is true, and it is the pattern we observe in both the genomes of living organisms and in the fossil record. Since genetics is a bit off topic here I will only breifly mention
this paper which states:
quote:
Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). . .
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. (Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
What we see in ERV's is more than just similarity. What we see is a
pattern of similarity that we know evolution produces, and only that pattern.
As for fossils, this nested hierarchy is seen again. We do see fossils with a mixture of modern human features and basal ape features just as we should see if evolution is true. We do
not see mixtures of features which would violate this nested hierarchy pattern, such as fossils with a mixture of cat and basal ape features. If the "common creator" idea were true there is no reason that we should see this nested pattern of similarity. We should just as likely see a fossil with a mixture of cat and ape features as we do a mixture of human and ape features.
Humans also have large segments of their DNA in common with the dog and a significant minority of it with a mouse.
As we should, being that we share a common ancestor with dogs and mice.
Does this prove genetically that we are from a common ancestor? Saying it does only begs the question, a logical fallacy if it is used as an explanation.
False. It is possible to both share DNA with other species and falsify common descent. Again, it is the pattern of similarity that matters here.
Also, are you trying to say that if humans shared a common ancestor with other species that they should not share DNA in common?
Claiming that evolution as a mechanism in genetics or paleontology results is the true answer smacks of claiming to know more than one can seriously offer as a 'scientist.'
What I can say as a scientist is that the theory of evolution makes very specific and risky predictions. Those predictions can be tested by both the fossil record and the genomes of living species. The theory of evolution has passed these tests for 150 years now. It has passed literally millions of experiments where it could have failed. It didn't. I will never claim that the theory of evolution is 100% true. I will never claim that anything is 100% true. However, I will say that a theory that has passed 150 years of testing and millions of tries at falsifying it can be considered a fact for all intents and purposes. Yes, there are still some fine details to work out, but if the theory were generally not true it would have been discovered already.
Scientists come up with hypothesis to test them, rather than to just describe similarity between animals. A good science experiment would be to show fundamental change in genetics occuring that doesn't kill off the animal it is happening in, as it becomes a significantly different animal.
Look no further than the genomes of living species. They differ can differ by quite a bit without adversely affecting the species. Humans and chimps differ by 2% or 5%, depending on whether or not you include indels. Are you saying that humans do not benefit from those differences?
If I use the same computer language and similar segments of code to write two seperate programs, that doesn't mean that the second program was naturally selected out of the first. They weren't the same program at some time. It only shows that the designer of these programs used a similar language to do two seperate 'projects,' if you will.
Please show that the only result of reusing and rewriting programs would be a nested hierarchy. For example, please show that a programmer would not or could not copy a program block from one lineage and drop it into another. From my knowledge, programmers do this all of the time without any though to preserving a nested hierarchy. Therefore, if design were true then we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. If evolution were true then we would expect to see nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
