Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I’m well aware that you don’t accept an argument unless it’s supported by a scientific publication. The thing about the human and chimp genomes is that earlier studies didn’t have the more complete genome studies that we have now. The older ones had assumptions where the genome was incomplete, and there was a contamination problem. I have an article to cite for the %15 difference, https://www.icr.org/article/separate-studies-converge-human-...
The more complete, more recent genomes are publicly available. Anyone who knows how to do the comparison can do it and find that the difference is at least %15.
The majority of scientists do see millions of years in the Grand Canyon as rock solid, but what isn’t rock solid is the soft tissue found in fossils thought to be tens of millions of years old. This is published in scientific journals. It’s well understood by scientists that soft tissue, like what’s found in locations around the world and in different strata, should not exist for a million years.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.