I think you are arriving late to this discussion.
I posted a link of scientific evidence differentiating primates and humans. No one debunked it. The link is still out there in this thread with excerpts from the article. So have a look into the "alternate universe." Get back to me once you have.
Moreover, I sustained the point that the desire to see humans and apes as similar obstructs scientific views of the differences. This is why it is important not to approach science with an agenda or axe to grind.
The entire humiliation theme indicated toward ID scientists is ridiculous.
I think you are mistaken.
I posted a link of scientific evidence differentiating primates and humans. No one debunked it.
The article itself needs no debunking. Your conclusions about it are a different matter, and I myself *have* addressed those already.
The link is still out there in this thread with excerpts from the article. So have a look into the "alternate universe." Get back to me once you have.
Um... Been there and done that already. Try to keep up.
What you're overlooking is the fact that nothing in the article you posted substantiates your claim about it:
I understand that considerable genetic differentiation between humans and other primates have been found. It has been found to such an extent that the smooth evolution theories have been problematized.Absolutely nothing in the article you posted supports (or even mentions anything about) the claim you made which I have marked in boldface.
Moreover, I sustained the point that the desire to see humans and apes as similar obstructs scientific views of the differences.
And you are incorrect in that presumption. Both the differences and the similarities are being vigorously investigated.
The entire humiliation theme indicated toward ID scientists is ridiculous.
When "ID scientists" make bogus claims and overblown pronouncements that are unsupported by the facts, they humiliate themselves. We just point it out.
We weren't debunking your article, which is fairly typical of science journalism. We were amused by your interpretation of it.