I haven't used inaccurate sources. Genetics alone proves common descent, and I have the peer reviewed papers to prove it.
Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps at the same exact spot in both genomes while only differing by less 100 in the human genome. This is smoking gun proof that we share a common ancestor.
for one if common ancestry from a single ancestor was true, the sedimentary rock would be packed with transition fossils of organisms which bridge the gap between genra (macro evolution). Not just a few, but multiple hundreds of thousands. And how fossils do you now know of? I await your response.
So even though all organisms share a common genetic code with varying degrees of closeness, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types are in molecular isolation from one another. There are no Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps. Darwinists cannot explain the presence of these molecular gaps by natural selection any more than they can explain the presence of huge gaps in the fossil record
Heres where the problem arises for Darwinists. If all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But thats not what we find at all. Instead, we find that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship.
secondly:
Genome projects supporting human/chimp common ancestry typically refuse to accept the differences in the gene sequencing:
Lets use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters:
Charles Darwin was a scientific god.
Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90 percent), the slight difference in order yields opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree. For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90 percent.
- above quotes from: Norman Geisler, and Frank Turek, I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, 2004.
As you can see above, similarities in genetic structure typically can mean that the designer allowed us to consume food within a certain food chain structure and resultantly designed various organisms with similar genetic structure to digest food easier. It does not prove common ancestry any more that a pot evolving from a teaspoon.
we are less similar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)
so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs using these methods than you can prove humans evolved from chimpanzees.
(see following table 1 for the cats genetic charts-)
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
Geneticist Richard Buggs
To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
from:
Chimpanzee? - Reformatorisch Dagblad
72% is alot different than say 96-99% similarity.
at this point all that need to be realized is that gene ordering is important, and it's the alignments that are way off.
here is a stack of references to that support this importance in ordering:
"Jachowicz et al., "Heterochromatin establishment at pericentromeres depends on nuclear position," Genes & Development, 27: 2427-2432 (2013); Verdaasdonk et al., "Centromere Tethering Confines Chromosome Domains," Molecular Cell, 52: 1-13 (December 26, 2013); Filion et al., "Systematic Protein Location Mapping Reveals Five Principal Chromatin Types in Drosophila Cells,"Cell, 143: 212-224 (October 15, 2010); Giacomo Cavalli, "From Linear Genes to Epigenetic Inheritance of Three-dimensional Epigenomes," Journal of Molecular Biology (2011); Justin M. O'Sullivan, "Chromosome Organizaton in Simple and Complex Unicellular Organisms," Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 13: 37-42 (2011); Dirar Homouz and Andrzej S. Kudlicki, "The 3D Organization of the Yeast Genome Correlates with Co-Expression and Reflects Functional Relations between Genes," PLoS One, 8: e54699 (January, 2013); Stephen A. Hoang and Stefan Bekiranov, "The Network Architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome," PLoS One, 8: e81972 (December, 2013)."
the above and dozens more references found
on evolutionnews.org
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views
Cats share 90% homologous genes with humans.
in fact cats share 81.9% homologous genes with dogs! (no kidding)
Governmental Genome project on Cats
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
does this mean we evolved from cats? OR cats from Dogs?
You see how genetic similarity can be misleading.
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
you can see we obviously didn't evolve from Cats or pigs, and cats didn't obviously evolve from dogs.
