Oh, Wow! I knew of efforts out there & heard AronRa talking about a site like this that he was going to run up at one point but I never did find it... How up to date is it, has there ben any maintenance since 2011? Thank you!
Well, the evidence shows that we share a common ancestor, that's probably why it's accept we have a common ancestor - no assumptions. Genetically, there's nothing special about our DNA makeup that would wall this fact off from being true - so it's a rational evaluation. What IS out of place is your claim that the evidence should be ignored in favour of an unfounded assertion that we DON'T share all these common traits with the other great apes... do you have any evidence in support of this idea?
lol! You seriously quoted Answers in Genesis?? I refer you to their declared bias -
Statement of Faith , Section 4, last point where it states, and I quote:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Essentially it says: "We will ignore everything that disagrees with our presuppositions"... This is not how Science is done. Looking at the article anyway, this is another whole opinion piece that doesn't even address the evidence, it just ridicules the evidence and uses derogatory terms for the research and belittles the outcome of the research without really addressing that evidence. Seriously, how is anyone besides those who already believe, supposed to take this seriously? At one point (to their credit), this article does admit that it could look like common ancestry, but then goes right on to say that it just couldn't possibly be!
Completely without scientific foundation! It distorts the scientific research that supports Evolution supposing any number of other & often untestable reasons for why it couldn't be so. I'm sorry, this is just insulting to people who actually do scientific research.
Oh, Sorry! I worded my reply too hastily & didn't proof what I wanted to convey to you - I meant to say "They've pointed out that valid scientific research shows otherwise", and it does. Now, If you go back, you will see that original statement of mine, you will see that 'I' am stating, as have both
@Subduction Zone &
@sfs , that there are plenty of reasons to ignore laypeoples opinions that contradict legitimate peer-reviewed scientific research. Different story if these laypeople submit their own scientific peer reviewed rebuttals of course, but this isn't the case.
But now we might be onto something, Both
@Subduction Zone and (especially)
@sfs have cited a great many legitimate sources for their arguments.
@sfs in particular has around two decades of in-the-trenches research in the field of biology - as much as he might not be writing a peer-reviewed critique of your references, I'll take his 'opinion' over any of your referred 'opinions' any day of the week! Even so, their time here is resplendent with quotes from, and citations to legitimate scientific research in support of their positions. Is it your contention that peer-reviewed Scientific Research is invalid, or that their (and my) citing of peer-reviewed scientific research it is invalid?
Peer-review and the scientific method aren't perfect, I agree. What I will say though is that peer review and the scientific method are hands down the best way we come about reliable points of fact. It has literally given us nearly all the technological progress we enjoy today. If I might plagarise Winston Churchill's famous quote on Democratic governance in support of the Scientific Method - The Scientific Method is the Worst form of coming about the truth except for all the other forms we've tried...