Of course it's not religion, mythology is something that happens when you lose your religion.
Mythology is a part of religion. Take the creation mythology in Genesis as an example.
Back to begging the question of proof, it's a nice change from the ad hominems.
No, I am pointing to the facts while you are ignoring them.
Now for the equivocation, science isn't synonymous with the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.
Universal common descent is a product of the scientific method just as all theories are. Universal common descent is no different than the conclusion that germs cause disease or that matter is made up of atoms.
I have yet to see a Creationist that was opposed to Mendelian genetics for one simple reason, Creationism is not opposed to science or evolutionary biology in the proper sense of those terms. They are opposed to Darwinism pure and simple. The only thing being repeated is your repertoire of fallacious logic.
And yet you reject the Mendelian genetics of ERV's demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Not once have I seen a theistic evolutionist willing to take a stand on the Scriptures. Instead they want to demean and ostracize anyone who dares affirm the foundational doctrine of Creation.
And here you are demeaning and ostracizing theistic evolutionists.
Biology is about living systems, pure and simple.
Yes, both past and present. Why do all animals with fur have three middle ear bones? To answer that question about living systems you have to understand the history of their evolutionary lineages. The present living systems are contingent on their past evolutionary histories.
Want to determine the function of a protein from it's sequence? Guess what you can use? You can use Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships (SIFTER). It uses the evolutionary history of a phylogeny to determine protein function, and it does so with extreme accuracy:
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology.
Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations.
Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature.
Protein molecular function prediction by Ba... [PLoS Comput Biol. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
The evolutionary histories of species are extremely important in understanding and researching the function of living systems. It is vital to the understanding of biology.
Those nested hierarchies are zoological categories largely organized for convenience.
Then show me a mammal that that could also be nested with birds.
The nested hierarchies are facts, not conveniences.
One of the clearest indications of bias being the complete absence of Chimpanzee ancestors even though the vast majority of our supposed ancestors had Chimpanzee size brains, particularly the Homo habilis ones.
Bias? How is that bias? Also, we have hominids that have brain sizes in between chimps and humans. They are transitional.
Genomics has demonstrated that the human genome is far more divergent then was predicted or could be expected.
You have never supported this with evidence. All you have is incredulity.
Our ancestors would have had neither the time nor the means to have tripled the cranial capacity, virtually overnight, about 2 million years ago.
And if you found a 50 year old human pygmy skull and compared it to a modern european you would claim that modern human brain size has doubled in 50 years. We already know how you like to cherry pick the data.
Which leads me to a very serious question, if we are so much alike in our respective genomes why do so many evolutionists lie about the divergence between the Chimpanzee and Human genomes?
They don't lie about it. It is discussed extensively in the chimp genome paper.
Your arguments are spiraling into smaller and smaller circles. If you want substantive answers ask real questions.
If you want to be taken seriously, deal with the facts and don't ignore them.
Science defined how exactly?
As defined by the scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Steps of the Scientific Method
Science is an examination of natural phenomenon based on the epistemology we call science. God is not examined by science and God is not outside the parameters of science. God is altogether other which is called the asiety or utter independence of God. While God is separate from the created universe God's glory and divine revelation transcends the natural world.
That is only if you define God so that God is indistinguishable from a god who does not exist. If God acts on nature and changes nature then God can be a part of science.
... Huh?
