Anna Merikin's Journal: Human evolution -- or Revolution?

This has become a sore point with me. I will try to explain my thinking on this after a year and a half of study, which I started with a recent (2004) edition of a college evolutionary biology textbook. I found the same questions I asked in my post of Feb, 2006 with regard to the question of whether science can explain all of the anamolies nature exhibits in speciation.

I complained that the organization of the evolutionary "tree" is poor and does not inpsire insight. It leaves so many questions unanswered, especially those involved in the study of behavioral evolution and sociobiology, nascent sciences both.

It turns out the "scientific" press has been misleading us with respect to humans' supposed close link to other primates. It has been reported that we share 99.8 per cent of our genes with chimpanzees.

I need to disgress for a paragraph here. There is a science of textual analysis that grades the difficulty of reading a certain piece of text by taking into consideration the number of unique words, their difficulty, and the proportion of verbs, modifiers and connections as well as sentence length. These scales (Fletch Reading Ease, and others) are quite accurate and well accepted by teaching professionals and editors.

Very recently, it was shown that the arrangemet of the DNA strands in human DNA is in a different order compared to chimpanzees. As I understand the finding, it is as if a piece (perhaps one-third) of a strand of Chimp DNA was reversed and one more pair of chromosomes added at the joint (Someone correct my facts if they are wrong here).

So, in effect, our (us laymen and scientists out of their specialty) understanding of the evolution of human DNA has been formed by the same logic that would have us believe that one book of 220000 words and another of 210000 are are closely related in content because they share 99.8 oer cent of the same unique words and have a similar total number.

This is clearly rubbish. And so is science's claim that humans are in any way evolutionarily (historically) connected to chimps or to any other species, since we and they could never have produced viable offspring in hybridization, given the wide difference in *the arrangement* of the genetic material on the RNA/DNA strands.

This knocks the theories that humans evolved gradually from other primates into the trash bin. It also builds a stronger case for the need for newly-speciated individuals to find each other (at the same time!) and set up a viable and unique mating ritual to keep hybridization to a minimum as the hybrid individuals would not be able to reproduce either species or would not be born alive. These are accepted principles in evolutionary biology today.

So, the way humans evolved has never been clear, regardless of what the *faithful* scientist has told the rest of the world. Science does not rest on faith. And the facts do NOT support the traditional scientific view of human evolution, in my opinion.

In fact, I would more easily accept that the reversal of part of the DNA/RNA strands is not evolutionaly at all but, instead, revolutionary.

However, let no one think that because it was a revolutionary shift there must have been a supernatural cause.

We just don't understand how we came to be as well as we were told we do.

And I stand by that.