Now, what in the world is wrong with you evolutionists? In a previous discussion you claimed humans were evolved from apes because the two shared 97 % of genes, and now we have scientific evidence that mice and humans share 99 % of genes. So, isn't it logical, using the same criteria of your previous argument, that humans must have descended from mice? Didn't you doubters read all the article I referrenced to the Sanger Institute? These are the guys who also deciphered the human genome! Are you now saying their work is not valid, even though it is published in the peer reviewed journal, Nature? When they state;
"It might be said that we are essentially mice without tails--but we even have the genes that could make a tail."
--doesn't that clue you in to the similarities between humans and mice? They never said that about the relationship between humans and any other species, not even the apes, even though many genes are shared in common with other species. So where is your faith in science now? Is science only to be used by evolutionists as a source when it fits your illogical "human from an ape" scenario?
And what about this?
-- "The report shows that both species have around 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism --highligting the tremendous value of the mouse as the most important animal model in biomedical research."
They don't say the "most abundant", they say the "most important". It used to be thought that monkeys were the most important because they have physiology similar to our own and it was believed that we descended from apes. But the DNA shows that not to be true. If the DNA shows that we are closer to the mouse than we are even to apes, then why are you evolutionists trying to evade that evidence?
Clearly, we don't have to wait for embarrassing responses from evolutionists who must now be feeling conflicted regarding their belief in the non-viable evolution theory. Humans didn't evolve from mice, and they didn't evolve from apes, either. The fact that genes are shared in common with other animals is evidence that at the beginning stages of life there are specific designs of genes that work together to make life. The differences in species are designated by the inclusion of different clusters of genes into the common denominator gene strings that make life.
Evolutionists always confuse natural selection with evolution theory and it is this confusion that leads them to make such absurd claims for their evolution theory, that and their die-hard resistence to a religious beginning for life systems on this planet. Mice, or any other animal, can't change into an entirely different type of organism, no matter how much time that someone would like to pretend thay had to do so, because different genes are different things that can't arbitrarily change into something entirely different.
Whether the evolutionists can come to grips with the reality of a non-continuity of species organization is immaterial to the reality of science. Their view is of the majority in corporate/science, but the old adage that a billion good minds don't equal a single great mind rings true for all of them. Science will march on, regardless of their posturing, and, historically, it will treat their view as it does all the wacky views that it briefly entertains.
Since the evolutionist view is so patently non-viable, then there must be a scientific explanation for the agglomeration of species on this planet. So far, the Bible is the only source which states that there was a beginning for modern species. The Bible does not state if there were species on this planet at any time before Genesis, so, from the fossil evidence, we have to presume there was. Nor does the Bible state how the organization in Genesis was accomplished, so that is a scientific question that must be left open-ended. After all, if a God created our modern ecosystem, then that God had to come from somewhere and that God had to use some means that can ultimately be explained empirically. Whether or not anyone believes in God is immaterial to the science, but it is essential to the science that all logical avenues of investigation are pursued. This precludes forming an opinion based on emotionalism or prejudice. If evolutionists cannot assimilate that data, then their childish understanding of science is not worthy of discussion.