Evidence for God from Science

Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.

Swimmy wrote:Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.

Shouldn't the onus of proof be on those making the claim?

Swimmy wrote:Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.

Because:
1. The common ancestor has not been found.
2. The interpretation of the genetic "evidence" is question-begging.

NOt to mention that all of the outlines are rather messy....they don't have a clear idea of the ancestors.

Look up the definition of fact, and the definition of opinion and you'd probably have all the evidence you need.

Making clever drawings with lines connecting one creature to another is not fact. "But look, this line connecting Austra-whoever to Homowhoever." Man made lines are not facts.

Hey Swimmy,

1) Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution comes from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two papers do not leave much hope for human evolutionary research.

This study took two groups of living primates, each group being made up of different kinds of primates. An evolutionary tree was made for each group based on their morphology (skulls, teeth, etc). Then an evolutionary tree was produced for each group based on their DNA. The evolutionary trees based on bones disagreed with the ones based on DNA. This was the case for both groups.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae

As the story goes, our closest relative should be the chimp, but this study shows otherwise. Again, the bones and DNA do not match. DNA says chimp, but the bones say orangutan.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

2) "Junk DNA" in the wrong place and pointing to the wrong relatives.
Endogenous retroviruses are assumed to be evidence for evolution. ERVs in humans should be closely related to chimps. Here are some quotes from a research paper:

by studying the population dynamics of complete copies of primate endogenous retrovirus family K (ERV-K) in the genomes of humans, chimpanzee and rhesus monkey, a surprising pattern was observed....being published this week on PLoS ONE revealed that human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee.

Reporting on research in 2005 found another problem for ERVs:

What researchers don't understand is why the virus affected the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys, but didn't affect the ancestors of humans or of Asian apes like orangutans and gibbons.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... 30110&ct=1

All 299 of these "insertions" look to be non-orthologous even though some are found in similar positions.

3) "Junk" DNA is being found to have more and more functions, so the evolutionary claim that it is left over junk from evolution is making less and less sense. Here is a link to many articles. http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=junk+DNA

4) Non-random insertions of "Junk DNA." This points away from common ancestry being the reason for common junk being found in different species.
http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ging-blues

http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ent-design

5) Chromosome 2 is not strong evidence for a human/chimp relationship.
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf

6) The fossil record does not show any clear relationships between the hominids.