The approach is subject to error because it relies on the accuracy of the ages of fossils and assumes that mutation rates are similar across ape species.There is a better way, says molecular anthropologist Linda Vigilant of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.Let’s examine the big picture, as seen from the evolutionist’s perspective.Evolutionists maintain that life evolved as a single cell, our last universal common ancestor (LUCA), billions of years ago.In order to fully understand human evolutionary history through the use of molecular data, it is essential to include our closest relatives as a comparison.
The problem is that scientists often calculate the mutation rate using dates from fossils of other primate species, then applying this rate to the African apes and humans.
The publication titled this celebration of an apparent evolutionary victory “Why We’re Closer Than Ever to a Timeline for Human Evolution.”1 Let’s have a look at the molecular clock credited with resolving the timeline and see if, as the Guardian proclaims, we really are “closer than ever to a timeline for human evolution.” Are we, as the Guardian claims, nearly ready to salute a chimp and know “the correct number of ‘greats’”2 between his great-great-so-many-greats grandpappy and ours?
The discrepancies that disturb evolutionists focusing on human history involve the timing of two key events—the supposed split between chimp and human lineages and the divergence of the Neanderthal variety of human from the modern human lineage.
This chimpanzee mother, Jolie, and her infant male, Zawinul, from the Ngogo community in Kibale National Park, Uganda, helped reveal the average length of a generation time in chimps.
Kevin Langergraber We aren’t the only primates with a big generation gap.