With this evidence, how can anyone reasonably deny that we share a common ancestor with apes?

Question

Before reading further it is important to note that it would be a severe blow to evolutionary theory if there had been no evidence to support the hypothesis stated below. This falsifiability is what makes evolution science (as opposed to ID).

======================================
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
===========================================
If you are wondering how the change from 24 to 23 chromosomes worked, read the best answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070127201923AARAcLj

5thof11,

Although perhaps a bit more difficult to understand, I find this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges

the most convincing confirmation of common descent because there is absolutely no reason for both humans and apes to have been 'designed' with a broken biochemical pathway or for those broken pathways to be nearly identical.

As for what this means in relation to God, I think that it is up to every person to draw their own spiritual conclusions. Evolution certainly does not disprove God. Not by any means.

Also, to answer your question if this has happened at any other time:

If you are talking about the fusing of chromosomes - yes it has happened. They can be seen in species today as partially fused. And so long as evolutionary theory holds, the operating assumption has to be that this has happened a lot over the history of life.

However, this is probably the first case where the evolutionary fusion has been convrimed between two species. Scientiest have sequenced the genomes of very few species, and the remnants of such fusion would only be visible in closely related species because genetic drift would eventually wipe out the similarities of the non-functioning regions of the genome.

Please, what is the evidence against 'macro-evolution'?

Saying there is evidence against it and demonstrating that there actually is evidence are two different things.

Speciation has been observed and there are plenty of transtional fossils to demonstrate, for example, the evolution of the whale from a land mammal to a sea mamal.

Where is this counter evidence you speak of?

Tommy G. We are neither greater nor lesser than apes. This is just demonstration that we share a common ancestor with them. Also, this has nothing to do with Down's Syndrome since that does not result from fused chromsomes but an extra chromosome.

Answer 1

Few people do reasonably deny it. It's an accepted fact amongst biologists and only a minority of radical conservative Christians seek to challenge it, and even then they only do so with misinformation and rhetoric rather than valid scientific evidence.

Answer 2

The short answer is nobody can reasonably deny our ape common ancestor.

The proposition that we evolvled is:
- Consistent with our other knowledge
- Not refuted by other data

Which would get us to a Popperian hypotheis-that hasn't-been falsified yet. And no further, except for the above make it:

- The only consistent, unrefuted explanation of the facts we can formulate.

It may not be true (someone may come up with a better theory later) but ID/Creation

- in so far as it makes predictions has seen them falsified
- does not explain the facts.

How do you "explain" a fact? By stating something from which the facts can be deduced. "I'm sorry I'm late, the car broke down". I can deduce lateness from the car breaking down:

- If the car breaks down I will be late,
- The car broke down
- Therefore I am late

- If the car breaks down I will be late
- I had the radio on in the car
- Therefore I am late

Does NOT work, it does not explain lateness as we cannot expect lateness from the radio.

EVOLUTION
- Apes have 24 pairs of Chromosones, Humans 23
- We evolved from apes
- We would expect clear fusion of two ape chromosones
We can deduce the existence of the facts (clear fusion) from the explanation (evolution). Evolution explains what we see

ID
- Apes have 24 pairs of Chromosones, Humans 23
- We were designed intelligently

I can deduce nothing about the state of the world from that.

(PS below is Ken Miller's short but devastating refutation of the basic tenants of ID - I fail to see how anyone can honestly hold to ID after reading that)

Answer 3

What a great and well thought out question.
Great points.
I do not know why this is the case and it is pretty cool.
But, we do share very similar DNA with other animals also- like I believe we share 99% similarity with rabbit DNA.

But, that's inconsequential. What does matter is this: What makes Macro-evolution a theory is that there is an equal amount of evidence that disproves it as proves it. We, as humans decide which side we're going to belief so it's a matter of belief, not science.
For example there's a book called Darwin's black box that speaks of the impossibility of the cell developing one piece at a time. It had to all be there at once, or it didn't work. Michael Behe and Philip Johnson have done a lot of work in these areas. Because there is an equal amount of evidence both for and against it - this makes it a matter of belief, not fact.

I am not saying that I disagree with your facts at all, just that they are not the only evidence.

Answer 4

This is fascinating, I'll check it out more thoroughly when I get more caffeine. has this happened any other time in recorded history or is this an isolated event? If we have a common ancestor with Apes does that mean we weren't Created? I've been interested in this subject for about 20 years.It hasn't hurt my belief in God just seems to give me more to marvel at. Do you have more info. like this?

Answer 5

I will review the information. But what if God wanted to use some of the same chromosomes in man as other animals? I see it as we got the best! Besides, how does this account for our awareness of life as we have it, that the animals don't.

Answer 6

So your point is we are less than apes and also down syndrome individuals so be gene degradation we are descendant from them?

Answer 7

Isn't it amazing that theories into how other theories could possibly work are proffered as 'evidence'!? Completely disingenuous.

Answer 8

the placement with maximum persons of human beings that declare to be 'atheists' is they sense they ought to act in an inflammatory thanks to get their factor in the course of. A minimum style of the atheists that peruse this information superhighway web site have even considered theology, no longer to indicate studied religious philosophy. Even fewer are prepared to provide considered arguments hostile to religious thoughts. in my opinion, i'm an atheist. i do no longer, notwithstanding, trust faith is incorrect. as long as a persons' personal beliefs do no longer infringe on my existence then all's nicely. i trust that atheists and believers must be able to artwork at the same time in communique about their opposing beliefs with out rancour because concept ought to in trouble-free words be threatened through a valid argument. i have no longer yet found a religious argument that can convince me to regulate my ideas. further i'd clarify my beliefs and percieved inconsistancies in faith to someone who become fascinated, no longer in an attempt to discredit faith yet to have them evaluate and replace veiwpoint. To counter a number of your factors, it is as life like to state "there is no God" and "technology is nice" because it truly is to say "there is God" and "technology is incorrect" as you do not have any authentic wish of proving both maximum ideal. and not in any respect intending to insult or belittle you, grammar is spelt... grammar. the placement with a religious reaction to an atheist's question is that it continually falls lower back to a similar answer - God. a very unsatisfactory clarification for any phenomenon. I settle for that there are some issues we are able to not in any respect comprehend, yet i trust that is component of existence. Is it smarter to respond to the insoluble with God, or to settle for that we are able to not yet wish we are able to sometime comprehend? Message me in case you opt for to communicate.

Answer 9

ooo ooo ooo aaaa aaa eeeeeeeee

Answer 10

They are fundies.