Humans Share a Common Ancestory with other Primates

I know those apologetic sites try to sound scientific. However, when you do the research for yourself, you see their arguments are anything but. As for your first question, "But is that ancestor shared with primates? " The answer is absolutely yes. mDNA proves humans and primates share a common ancestry: "Based on the evidence from mtDNA sequences, chimpanzees and humans were determined to be each other's closest relatives. These studies further suggest that humans and chimpanzees separated almost five million years ago, and the human-chimp clade separated from gorillas almost eight million years ago . . . Subsequent analyses from even more genes have corroborated this conclusion reached by Ruvolo and the earlier mitochondrial DNA studies. " - Rediscoverying Biology: A Molecular and Global Perspective (2013) [Unit 9: Human Evolution] I will also provide a link for the peer reviewed scientific paper that supports this conclusion as well: . http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca... (The reason I haven't directly quoted from peer reviewed material is because, as anyone can see clicking on the link, they are highly technichal writings filled with graphs, charts, statistics, and complex modeling that does not have cookie cutter statements or catch phrases. That is why I instead paraphrase and provide a link that others can check for themselves. However, if you're more comfortable having a Biology textbook paraphrase, I am happy to provide the above quote. ) Concerning the Y Chromosome I showed proof of this in the Paper I cited in my opening arguments. This paper conclusively proves the link between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. I apologize once again as there is no cookie cutter statement so I will instead quote what the Paper said about our primate lineage in regards to the Y chromosome: "As the molecular-clock hypothesis seems to hold well for the 53 intergenic regions and for the synonymous sites used in this study, these regions are suitable for estimating the divergence dates among the human, chimpanzee, and gorilla lineages. Our estimates are similar to those of Goodman et al. (1998) of 7 million and 6 million years ago for the gorilla branching node and the human-chimpanzee divergence, respectively. In any event, our data suggest that the internodal time span between the human-chimpanzee divergence and the gorilla speciation event is about one-third of the divergence time between the human and chimpanzee lineages. " Albeit a bit technical, it clearly spells out the common ancestory of humans and primates. Though, to really understand why that is the case, you'll have to read the paper yourself which I'll once again cite:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Also there was some confusion on the paper I cited, "He offers up a paper shortly afterwards that supposedly verifies this. .. but the paper says nothing on this subject. " I cited it in my second round as you had challenged (in the first round) that the Y Chromosome could not be used to determine common ancestry. The paper in question was on the methodology and legitimacy of using the Y Chromosome to determine lineage. It was not meant to address human/primate evolution. For that, see the link I posted above. And now most painfully, on to ERVs. "Of course this doesn't 100% prove my statement. " No, it doesn't prove your statement at all. If you are going to assert that ERVs being functional mean they are not transmitted than you are going to have to show proof of that. All retrovirsus insert genetic material into their host cell through the process of reverse transcription. Re-coding your DNA is how they are able to replicate. That's also why they're the choice tool of molecular biologists when they want to re-write a section of DNA. ERVs are simply a retrovirus that infected a somatic cell of one of our ancestors. "So we see that ERVs are extremely unlikely to be planted randomly by viruses. " This statement could not be more untrue. They're not planted randomly. They are following a very specific genetic sequence determined by their RNA. It would be like saying humans "randomly" grow two arms and two fee. It's a complete misrepresentation of how the genome works. There's nothing random about the transcription. "Would you like to source that, Pro? " I sure would - "This approach identified 114 distinct retroviral TSS (Transcription Start Site) that promote transcription of human genes. 21 of these retroviral promoters have co-located ESTs, which independently support their ability to initiate transcription. These retroviral TSS correspond to 124 Refseq transcripts over 97 distinct gene loci. " Here's another paper that states it a little more succinctly - "Although HERVs have retained some similarity to their exogenous counterparts, they have acquired many mutations over the course of evolutionary time so that, with a few exceptions, they are now defective and incapable of producing protein. " . http://genomebiology.com... And now here's where it gets tedious. First you you talk about TvERV(D) which is entirely consistent with the evolutionary model. Than you pivot to Cats and Baboons sharing what appears to be a somewhat similar ERV. However, the sience cited in this paper is from the 1970s. A lot has been learned about these two ERVs over the years and we now know they are not the same. Here's a much more up to date Paper on the topic: "Phylogenetic analysis of FcEV and RD-114 fragments amplified from cat species and comparison with baboon endogenous virus (BaEV) fragments from monkeys suggested that RD-114 does not represent the cat strain of BaEV but is actually a new recombinant between FcEV type C genes and the env gene of BaEV. " . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Also, it's not just that we carry the same retrogenes as other primates. It's that the ERV's are in the exact same chromosomal locations which allow us to determine common ancestry. Lastly, your Apoptosis argument. I don't know why you think I should rebut an argument for which you have provided no supporting evidence. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you brought it up because you feel it is important. The simple answer is because many ERVs contain Inhibitors of Apoptosis (Google it) and also because of Error Prone Reverse Transcription. In closing, imagine a tree for which there was a placard before it which stated “This tree was planted in 1901. ” And then when you counted its tree rings it dated back to the year 1901. And finally, when you sent a sample off to the lab for radiometric dating the results came back for the year 1901. A person could argue that one of the dating methods was wrong. They might even be able to argue that all three dating methods were wrong. However, what would be impossible to argue is that all three dating methods were wrong and they all got the exact same date. The same goes for the genetic evidence that humans and primates share a common ancestry. mDNA proves it. The Y Chromosome proves it. ERVs prove it. And they all agree upon which apes are most closely related to us. Con has tried their hardest to try and poke holes in the science. But the science is solid. And all three forms of evidence are converging on the same answer - our closest mammalian cousins are the Chimpanzee - followed by the Gorilla and then the Orangutan. Our common ancestry is not just swinging in the trees around us it is also inscribed deep inside our DNA. It is a heritage that is written in the languege of life and encoded in every single cell of our body. Our fellow primates are the great grand children of our great grand fathers.