[quote="buffalo, post:3, topic:289558"]
Science and Human Origins http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51f2psg%2BvRL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
...I chose to look at the HLA-DRB1 story because it seemed to provide the strongest case from population genetics against two first parents. If it were true that we share thirty-two separate lineages of HLA-DRB1 with chimps, it would indeed cause difficulties for an original couple. But as we have seen, the data indicate that it is possible for us to have come from just two first parents.
.....Moreover, the data indicate that DNA similarity is not going to be a simple story to unravel. There are already regions of human DNA known to more closely resemble gorilla sequences than chimp sequences.22 Now we have sequences that resemble macaque DNA, a primate not part of the hominid group. Furthermore, when adjacent regions of DNA yield different evolutionary trees, linked to species that diverged well before the putative most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans, something unusual is going on.
This result was a surprise to me, and threw me back into a consideration of the whole story of our common descent from ape-like ancestors. I already knew from my own research that similarity of form or structure was not enough to demonstrate that neo-Darwinian common descent was possible. I knew that genuine protein innovations were beyond the reach of naturalistic processes. I therefore began to re-examine everything
I knew or thought I knew about human origins. I reviewed paleo-anthropology, evolutionary psychology and population genetics research articles, I reviewed popular books and textbooks. I applied strict logic to the story of what would be required for our evolution from great apes.
As a result of all this reading and reflection, although I was always skeptical about the plausibility of human evolution by neo-Darwinian means, I have now come to wonder about the extent of common descent as well.
Currently, neo-Darwinism is the accepted explanation for our origin. It may be, though, that as we continue to investigate our own
genomes, the Darwinian explanation for our similarity with chimps—namely, common descent—will evaporate. We may discover additional features in our genome that defy explanation based on common ancestry. As evidence of common descent’s insufficiency as a theory grows, alternate theories will need to be tested.
**But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.
Thank you, buffalo. I think there are some here that don't believe in God that are honestly searching for the truth, while, sadly, there are some who appear to present this theory as carved in stone and we must accept it. That is illogical as your example shows. And it is illogical in the sense that new discoveries are constantly being made, like your example above. It is only an assumption that science is only strengthening this theory. The exact opposite appears to be occurring.
Here's a great example of something scientists say was conserved - for no particular reason - for 400 million years. This, in my view, is a serious blow to previous claims that things like digits in animals came about through gradual processes and novel pathways that required all that time. It strongly suggests that all the information was front-loaded in the beginning and only required certain switches to activate at certain times.