The widening genetic gap

[zahizahi]

The comprehensive analysis of the chimpanzee genome reveals a greater genetic difference from humans

 

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/widening_genetic_gap.php

[gcol]

The facts may be true, but the conclusion does not follow. An otherwise interesting article, unfortunately spoiled. The final sentence:

 

"The theory of evolution is a deception concocted to uncover the fact of creation. Humans and chimpanzees did not evolve; they are perfect beings created by God, the Creator of all."

[Edtharan]

Actually, whatever the genetic similarity, it constitutes absolutely no contribution to the claim that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

Actually it can. There exist genes that can have different genetic sequances without it effeting the viability of the gene. Useing fossil records we can estimate the time when 2 spiecies shared a common ancestor. We can also, knowing the rate of mutation in a particular sequance estimate the time that the particular sequance in the two spiecies were the same. Useing these 2 different dateing techniques (one fossil based and the other geneitc) scientists get simmilar results for the age of the common ancestor.

 

This confomation of 2 different techniques to reach the same conclusion is good evidence for the existance of a common ancestor between the two spiecies. If these different techniques did not match very well then it would cast doubt that the proposed common ancestor of the two spiecies is not the common ancestor.

 

Sometimes the genetic dating technique hasn't matched the fossil date. And scientists have then looked for a fossil that did match the date. This has thrown up some suprises. One of which was that some dinosaurs that were related to birds should have had feathers. This has scince bee confirmd by fossil evidence. This is another demonstration that this method works. A prediction was made to the existance of fossils that had not yet been discovered. The fossil evidence has scince proved this prediction to be true.

[Milken]

How can two fossils show common descent?

The other method is the molecular "clock", which I. . . nevermind.

[Milken]

How is the case any stronger either way for similarity? One side says they're similiar because they have the same ancestor the other says they're similiar because they're built from similar parts.