Our genes do demonstrate our relationships to other species. In fact, our branch of the tree of life can be traced back to other “branches” easily and in that manner validate relationships suggested in paleontology. It’s a matter of determining common ancestors. For instance, we are not directly related to chimps but we share a common ancestor.
Our genes do demonstrate our relationships to other species. In fact, our branch of the tree of life can be traced back to other “branches” easily and in that manner validate relationships suggested in paleontology. It’s a matter of determining common ancestors. For instance, we are not directly related to chimps but we share a common ancestor.
1) Those branches and other organizations are VERY SUBJECTIVE. They are made to help us understand the world but that does not make them true and can lead to wrong understanding.
For example, in studying nematology, we would cut off the rear ends of nematodes, smash them on a slide and depending on the pattern, determine what they were. I often thought this would be a better way to categorize people than the color of their skin.
2) Would not the common genetic relationship speak more to the creativity of a creator, than evolution. A painter uses the same paint to paint different pictures.
“Our genes do demonstrate our relationships to other species. In fact, our branch of the tree of life can be traced back to other “branches” easily and in that manner validate relationships suggested in paleontology. It’s a matter of determining common ancestors.”
Yes. Therefore my comment: If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species.