Replies

It's the evidence in favor of evolution that convinces me of their common descent.

The evidence for common descent are:

1. The fossil record
2. Phylogenetic sequencing

You most likely came to accept common descent via the evidence of the fossil record, which is now being contradicted by the sequencing.

If the foundation for your view is crumbling why not consider other possibilities?

Or you could be fairly young and came to conclude that evolution is true because, well chimp and man have a more similar genome than man and dog, which is more simlar than man and squid etc. In this case how would you explain conundrums in the fossil record?

I'm not claiming evolution has been shown to be impossible. What I am claiming is that the guidance of a creator is just as scientific, or rational, an explanation if not more so.

Nor, am I claiming that evolutionists or relgious skeptics can't be moral people.

Thanks for linking that paper, it was quite an interesting read.
However, I don't see how the results described therein contradict the fossil record.
All it says is that the rate of chromosomal rearrangements in mice has been twice as fast as that in humans since the two lineages diverged. An other article I found says pretty much the same thing. Here is an excerpt:

The fusion leading to human chromosome 2 is an example of the sort of genome reorganization that has occurred in many species. Rearrangements like this can provide evolutionary clues, but are not always definitive proof of how closely related two species are. Consider the organization of known orthologous genes (that is, genes with the same ancestral sequence) shared by humans, chickens, and mice. One study estimated that 72 chromosome arrangements had occurred since the chicken and human last shared a common ancestor. This is substantially less than the estimated 128 rearrangements between chicken and mouse or 171 between mouse and human. Does this mean that chicken and humans are more closely related than mice and humans or mice and chickens? No, what these data actually show is that chromosome rearrangements have occurred at a much lower frequency in humans and chickens than in mice. Chromosomal rearrangements in mice seem to have occurred at twice the rate seen in humans.

Here again, I can't see any conflict with the fossil record. I admit I'm only a layman and I may be mistaken so maybe RightWingNilla who is a biologist (IIRC) can correct me if I'm wrong although I doubt he will arrive at a completely different conclusion.

What I am claiming is that the guidance of a creator is just as scientific, or rational, an explanation if not more so.

The guidance of a creator can be scientific but only if you have a model of this creator which includes for instance his limitations, the methods he uses to create or his motivations.
But we don't have any model of this alleged designer. ID'ists simply postulate one without telling us how and why he designs or what he can or cannot do. In other words this designer is just a big and fuzzy unknown which can be whatever you want it to be.

EVIDENCE???