Humans Share a Common Ancestory with other Primates

Excellent! I'm glad we agree. The Burden of Proof is on Pro to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that humans do share a common ancestry with primates. This means that I do not have to provide contentions of my own, but merely must show that my opponent's are false.Thus far, he has presented three arguments to support his case. I will now rebut each.P1. mDNAI'm afraid Pro's science is outdated by over 10 years. The once popular theory of mDNA showing us a common ancestor has, in fact, been long debunked.That may be why his source is from 1996...But what's wrong with this theory? The validity of this assertion, is dependent upon a critically important assumption: that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother. However, we now know that this assumption is wrong Just as women thought they were getting their fair shake in science, the tables turned. As one study noted: Women have struggled to gain equality in society, but biologists have long thought that females wield absolute power in a sphere far from the public eye: in the mitochondria, cellular organelles whose DNA is thought to pass intact from mother to child with no paternal influence. On page 2524 however, a study by Philip Awadalla of the University of Edinburgh and Adam Eyre-Walker and John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex in Brighton, U.K. finds signs of mixing between maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in humans and chimpanzees. Because biologists have used mtDNA as a tool to trace human ancestry and relationships, the finding has implications for everything from the identification of bodies to the existence of a “mitochondrial Eve” 200,000 years ago.[1] One year later, researchers made this startling admission: Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a differentDNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA.[2] In 2002, a study was conducted that concluded: Nevertheless, even a single validated example of paternal mtDNA transmission suggests that the interpretation of inheritance patterns in other kindreds thought to have mitochondrial disease should not be based on the dogmatic assumption of absolute maternal inheritance of mtDNA…. The unusual case described by Schwartz and Vissing is more than a mere curiosity.[3] And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers. The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded: Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA.[4] Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA! This recombination ability in mtDNA makes the entire discussion a moot point. As Strauss noted: Such recombination could be a blow for researchers who have used mtDNA to trace human evolutionary history and migrations. They have assumed that the mtDNA descends only through the mother, so they could draw a single evolutionary tree of maternal descent—all the way back to an African “mitochondrial Eve,” for example. But “with recombination there is no single tree,” notes Harpending. Instead, different parts of the molecule have different histories. Thus, “there’s not one woman to whom we can trace our mitochondria,” says Eyre-Walker.[5] Science is fickle, ain't it?P2. Y-ChromosomesAgain, my opponent's science is out of date.On Wednesday, January 13, 2010, Associated Press staff writer Seth Borenstein reported: “A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp’s”. Jennifer Hughes, the lead author of the research, explained that entire sections of the Y chromosome were “dramatically different” between humans and chimpanzees. In fact, “[t]here were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren’t on the chimp”.[6] Looking closely at this study, one finds several glaring things that are amiss. Human evolution must be assumed in order for the study to make any sense. It must be assumed that humans evolved from lower mammals and that chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Assumptions make for bad science. Furthermore, one of the reasons that supposedly shows humans and chimpanzees are closely related is their DNA resemblance... an idea which has also been refuted.[7] In addition, Borenstein noted that Hughes and Page said: “There is a bit of a proviso to the comparison to other chromosomes. While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there’s still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver”. So, out of the 48 chimpanzee chromosomes, researchers have studied only two in any depth. In one of the two that they have studied, there was a 30% difference between it an its alleged human counterpart. Yet these same researchers feel certain that such profound differences do not exist in the other 46 chimp chromosomes.... right.P3. RetrovirusERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses) are widely used as proof that we evolved from apes. Evolutionists say that retroviruses inserted genetic materian (an ERV) into our ape ancestors. Because we and chimps are closely related, we should have ERVs in similar positions. We do.There are two main problems with this theory, however.ERVs are functional.If ERVs are found to have function, then it is highly unlikely that they were inserted by retroviruses. Why? Functional ERVs would depend heavily on where they were positioned and/or what sequence they were in. Any slight adjustment would mean they were no longer functional.Viruses do not randomly insert tens of thousands ERVs in exactly the right location to provide us with invaluable function. But that's exactly the case with ERVs. ERVs shouldn't have function according to this theory, but they do have function. In fact, they aid transcription in a fifth of the genome![8] This is strong evidence that ERVs actually weren't the product of retroviruses!So why, when we compare our "ERVs" with, say, a chimp's... do we find so many similarities?Largely, it's because we and chimps are similar. We require similar functions, and have similar chracteristics. Thus, we both require the assistance of said "ERVs". They provide a function. Out of space. Looking forward to your response, Pro. Sources[1] Strauss, 286:2436, emp. added[2] Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emp. added[3] Williams, 2002, 347:611, emp. added[4] Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emp. added[5] Strauss, 286:2436, emp. added[6] http://www.usnews.com...[7] http://www.apologeticspress.org...[8] http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org...