I like how your "evidence" is all based in biology, and the facts you misinterpret have as much experimental support as the rest of the field, but everything that disagrees with you is a "theoretical assumption".
Do some reading, eh?
There is no need to be rude. I am glad you like the fact that my evidence is based in biology. That is in sharp contrast to having a science that requires assumptions to convert the evidence into a mystery.
See, here it is again. If we found genetic evidence that humans have no single common ancestor since our spit with chimps you'd call it theoretical modeling, but because you think y-chromosome Adam supports your view his existence cannot be called into question. It doesn't matter that he lived 100k years after MtDNA Eve, it doesn't matter that there are fossils of humans from all Africa dating to that era, all that matters is that if you squint really hard it looks like y-chromosome Adam supports Genesis.
Hey..your researcher invent this stuff. I am not responsible. I'm not sure what you're on about here. Your dating system is flawed. It is theoretical modelling that changes like the wind that is your evidence. What is flavour of the month as far as split time, these days?
Painted Wolf, i gotta leave this one to you. The article i found on google requires some manner of subscription, so i have to way of knowing what the hell she's talking about this time.
Yeah I thought as much!
Here's some some pre-cambrian life. It was almost all microscopic back then, so no one is surprised that fossils are hard to come by.
So do you think I have not read this link? Do you think this is clever ...just posting a link? Please identify what in the link you propose as evidence of one kind turning into another kind, which is the point. Rather the evidence is many life forms appear quickly, just as one would expect with the creation. There are many creatures from the precambrian here with us today as one would expect. All this evidence is in line with creation. There is no confusion. It is your problem to provide evidence of evolution from kind to another kind and you have not and neither do these sites you refer to. If I have missed some evidence rather than theoretical assumption, please point them out to me.. Rather these sites confirm that there is no evidence and only probably, perhaps and maybe. Which, may I point out, is not evidence. Too bad the site speaks nothing to evidence of any kind evolving into another kind. It is assumption and hypothesis. The fact is ...new life appeared rapidly in the cambrian, the rest is theoretical. What came from whom, is what you do not know and just make assumptions about.
As for your homonid fossils they could be anything from Lluc's decendants to gorilla's, like Lucy. Now you have Ardi, knuckle walking ancestry, Lluc and flat faced primates your fossils could be anything and are all delusional irrefutable evidence of the past.. I think researchers are grabbing at straws.
Skeleton after skeleton of pre-human hominids are found,
human chromosome 2 can be shown clearly to be two fused chromosomes that other hominids have, and you think we just appear "fully formed"? We're not even fully formed now unless you think it's normal that we're the only animals in the world that can't walk for several months after birth.
Again where is your evidence. These links look convincing yet they contain no evidence. What you have is human chromosome 2 that is non existant in chimps and other primates. The only way you are able to explain it is to say it is the result of evolution. We now know similar means nothing at all when it comes to gene families.
Note near identical, they are no really identical just close enough, according to researchers. However, now with gene expression, I wonder if this is more than meets the eye. These genes remain similar in chimps, orangutangs and gorillas. Our common ancestor predates the divergence of chimp, gorrilla and orangutang now. yet these three other species managed to 'evolve' the same 2p/2q set up independently as well as their knucklewalking. Do you think Ardi had human chromosome 2?
Wiki chromo2.
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[5][6]
The fact that it apears the same as 2 chimp chromosomes fused is generaly accepted yet you have no proof. Plants contain FoxP2, yet we did not evolve from a plant and a plant does not use this gene for language or intelligence. What you DO have is evidence of the vast differences in the chimp and human Male Y chromosome. I think there has been way too much hype about similarities and not enough hype about the differences.
I'm not aware of any attempt to find the one organism from which life originated. How would one even go about that? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, except the needle was disintegrated.
Of course you are not now, but you most certainly had the lovely LUCA waving it around as irrefutable evidence of ancestry of all life. It sounded great at the time also. LUCA is out it appears, now. However, I'll repeat it again you have evidence of life appearing in bursts in the Cambrian. You do not have evidence that anything evolved into anything. Without evidence to show ancestry the evidence you happen to have supports creation.
Expression of genes is important to how we appear, but looking at genes, expressed or otherwise, is important to determining ancestry. It's how paternity tests work, and is considered accurate enough to get a conviction in court without corroborating evidence.
Don't worry about our great great grandparents. Your genetics is very time limited and relies on the fossil evidence much more than people realise. Rather there is much work such as that on FOXP2 that shows how similar it is in neanderthal, but how very, very different it is in chimps in what it does and how it is expressed. I agree genetic similarities are really not similarities at all. For example there is research counting similarity differently that put the chimp/human comparison at 94%. putting humans out of the concept of same clade with the chimp.
I have another that suggests if you take the Y chromosome and all the deletions etc into account there is a 30% difference between human and chimps. The evidence for human chromo 2 pales into irrelevance when other differences are considered. Go figure!
The whole "common design" conceit is almost comical. Why would humans and plants share a common design? Our functions are vastly different. It'd be like making computers out of wood, because you want to use the same design you used for houses.
You are confirming what I said. The fact that we share similar gene with other organisms can be the result of many things other than ancestry. The appearance of say FOXP2 in plant, human and chimp means nothing at all in relation to evolution. Additionally, your genetic distancing is biased with the presumption of ancestry implied in the modelling.
Even more damning are the examples of dissimilar functions in similar environments. For example Dolphins live a very similar lifestyle to fish. Why would they ever be designed with lungs instead of gills? A Good designer would have given them gills, so they wouldn't have to worry about drowning in the only environment they can survive in. Also
why do they have the same bones in their flipper that you have in your arm?
