A hypothesis has to be logical to be valid, and the chimp DNA hypothesis is illogical. It violates the laws of logic as I pointed out and no one has yet adequately answered the problem. Conclusion doesn't follow premise; law of the excluded middle applies; similar does not equate to identical (fallacy of equivocation). This is not science. That's 3 strikes and yerrrr out!
A hypothesis has to be logical to be valid, and the chimp DNA hypothesis is illogical. It violates the laws of logic as I pointed out and no one has yet adequately answered the problem. Conclusion doesn't follow premise; law of the excluded middle applies; similar does not equate to identical (fallacy of equivocation). This is not science. That's 3 strikes and yerrrr out!
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I saw the X, Y, Q etc. example above, but have no idea of its applicability to what we are talking about. I'll let others deal with that.
I do know a bit about bones and have handled casts of many of the important fossils. These are a significant part of the data underlying the theory of evolution. What is your opinion on those?
You need to add a time dimension.
At T(1), X and Y share attributes Z and Q doesn't exist.
At T(0), Q has attributes Z but X and Y don't exist.
Further, it had been observed that there are thousands (or more) of cases like this.