Quote:

Cowgirl Jack said:
Now, speaking more like a scientist, I always get pissed off when people fake fossil evidence. However, it's tough to shrugg off genetic evidence. I'm still not sure on the speed of evolution (punctual or gradual), but I think DNA evidence will eventually prove one theory of another.



I definitely challenge this.

If you're referring to the idea that our genome reveals a relation between our genes and apes, then I must point out that-that reasoning has already been debunked. Besides the fact that we're actually still charting the genome, the reasoning behind its use for evolutionary credibility is totally specious.

It was reasoned that apes were discovered to have a gene formation that's 97% matchable to humans. Through this, and perhaps the fact that chimps have opposable fingers, it was decided that evolution was real. Then, later on, it was discovered that chimps had a 3% potential for sickle cell anemia. This is opposed to humans who only have .3% potential. Trying to say that apes were our earliest relatives using genome reasoning, while keeping the blatant base-letter mutations in apes (which differ totally from humans) in mind, is like saying alligators and whales are related to eachother simply because they live in water.