Bucane: Well the topic that I would like to get going is with Chimps and Gorillas being as close as they are genically to humans wouldn't it suggest that humans have evolved from apes??
With this alone as an observation, it could suggest either common design or common decent. Evolutionists love to cast the illusion by saying 1% similarity! and seldom state it in hard numbers. A 1% difference amounts to about 30 million different nucleotides. That’s a lot of individual nucleotides that have to become fixed in the entire population over such a short period of time, evolutionarily speaking (3-5 my).
But when you lift the hood and do a hard examination of the data, the evidence strongly suggests common decent is false. I have documented such evidence here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
To summarize, when scientists compare DNA between humans and simians, they arrive at a mutation rate that requires at least 40 offspring per couple average through the lineage! A recent study cited by evolutionist Scott Page yields a requirement of ~250!
Regarding shared mistakes in pseudogenes, this argument has been thoroughly refuted by Woodmorappe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-jw_pseudo.pdf
Some highlights from Woodmorappe’s article:
1) The shared mistake argument is built completely on the assumption that pseudogenes in general are non-functional, and specifically the pseudogene in question is non-functional. Yet there is growing evidence that pseudogenes serve some function.
2) Woodmorrape gives many counter-examples showing the subjective nature of pseudogene comparison, and shows that evolutionists need to shop around for the closest match and then present it as their argument for shared mistakes.
3) On a more technical level, pseudogenes show remarkable constraint. That is, they are not as garbled as one would expect if they truly represent a non-functional (ie neutral) DNA sequence that can tolerate mutations.
BoneHeadLady: The trick is to get them to stay in one spot long enough to actually discuss the evidence in detail. They tend avoid doing that, because most of them don't know anything about the actual evidence that paleoanthropologists know; they only "know" what they are told by other creationists who themselves have no experience or training and do not read the professional literature.
This point is irrelevant, since most laymen evolutionists as well as creationists do not read the professional literature. The real reason evos out-number creationists on debate boards is because Christians do not feel a strong need to justify their faith, while evolutionists feel an overwhelming need to justify their faith (in chance and blind processes). Yes I know, evolution is not a religion! We beg to differ. Flame away!
BTW, BHL, I do read the professional literature. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at my mutation rate article? I need another evo decal on the side of my plane!