While there is positive scientific evidence for human evolution, the use of negative theological arguements are, by definition non-scientific.
Naturalistic explanations rule out the supernatural, so the use of
negative theological arguements show a different intent for their use.
Here are the statements which really prove nothing.
"It does leave some questions open about why, exactly, God would want His "prized creation" to have so much in common (function-wise) with His "lesser" creations, but that can be chalked up to God working in mysterious ways."
"Now, if God had designed humans and other primates to require vitamin C from their food, he could just as well have left out this gene (and others involved in the synthesis of vit C). Clearly, similar genes for similar functions fails the creationist on this count. But! We could rescue the idea by postulating that God created humans and apes and all the other critters with a functioning LGGLO gene and, due to the curse, humans became vulnerable to mutations that damaged that gene."
"No one believes that God created humans or any other animal with the copies of RNA viruses already embedded in their genomes."
"Or maybe (just maybe), there was no fusion or fission (breaking apart) - maybe we were just created with similar DNA for similar functions, but God decided to put more of it together on one chromosome for us."
The statement that humans and chimp DNA is 98.5% identical is an estimate not a fact. The only fact is that this esimate has been repeated enough, that people accept this as fact.
That estimate was based on measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart. The developer of that technique, Roy Britten of Caltech, had second thoughts about the often quoted figure, and checked it out with new methods, now that the chimpanzee genome has been published.
Comparing insertions and deletions yields a figure three times bigger, over 5% difference, and that only after comparing about three hundredths of a percent of the genome.
His paper is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At the conclusion he states, One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand"
An article titled "Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans" in
Science Now states:
For almost 30 years, researchers had assumed that the DNA of humans and chimps is at about 98.5% identical. Now a closer look has revealed previously undiscovered nips and tucks in equivalent sections of DNA. The DNA sliced out of--or into--these genomes could explain some of the differences between humans and our closest primates cousins.
Although the true significance of the new differences between chimps and humans is unclear, "these kinds of things are really exciting," says Michael Conneally, a human geneticist at Indiana University Medical Center in Indianapolis. With this research, "we can really find out so much more about evolution."
How can something unclear help find out much more about evolution?
Because the DNA is a linear array of the four bases: A, G, C ant T, only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence.
This means two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical.
Even if all human genes which code for proteins were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA could still be 98.5 percent similiar if the non-coding DNA of humans and chimps was identical.
No matter what the genetic finding are, evolutionists will still believe that humans evolved from an ape like ancestor. They will just adapt the theory to whatever non cooperative data is presented.