First of all there is no such thing as a missing link. The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Bananas share 60% of the same DNA as humans, that doesn't mean we evolved from bananas. Although humans and pigs did have a common ancestor, it was long long ago. This doesn't disprove evolution whatsoever.
Those silly things that are calling themselves "scientists" Are thinking there is some "secret" mystical connection with pigs and human. "secret" spooky religious language.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/pigs-and-humans-more-closely-related-thought-according-genetic-analysisYou cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee. They have to have some answer to that. Evolutionary answer, how pig is related to primates. Those "scientists" knows that. They might be confused but at least they know what is logic. You don't.
What evolutionary story might this tell about the relationship of pigs and primates? For now, phylogeneticists can only speculate. But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
There is a string of connection. He forgot to tell - ITS GOD. Yes genetics are slow to learn that atheism is folly.
If not directly disproving evolution, that discovery shows that only 2% ( or even less) of human dna is used to distinguish between the kinds. Pig is not a primate, its not close in look to primates, it does not behave like primate. So genetic should have nothing with evolution.
First of all dna sharing does not prove god, in fact it disproves god. Why would god do that? He purposely made animals to share dna with other animals to confuse us?
You obviously don't know why scientists say that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, is not just a number and a percentage. I will explain why it is that the DNA we share is such a positive identifier of our mutual ancestry. Lets focus for a moment on chromosome 2. All Hominidae have 24 chromosomes, except for humans. We have only 23 chromosomes; if humans were really related to the other Hominidae why would we have a different number of chromosomes?
Well, here is the testable and falsifiable part of the evidence based approach we use to determine ancestry. One might hypothesize that if we have 23, but our proposed ancestors all have 24, that there could potentially be a loss of a chromosome. This would not be altogether compelling, because it might come off as just writing off the differences to square the circle. What would be really immensely compelling would be if two of the ancestral chromosomes fused. If this were the case then there would be consistency between total genetic elements, but more importantly there would be a conformational symmetry between one of our chromosomes and two of these non-human chromosomes in such a way that it would be profoundly improbable for the symmetry to be the result of random chance alone. Think about it, if we weren't directly related then we would have had to develop a single chromosome from our lineage which matched two distinct chromosomes from another unrelated lineage. The probability of that is astoundingly low even over an immense time interval.
And what do we see in chromsome 2: A vestigial centromere, inverted telomeric repeat sequences, sequence homology, everything we would expect from a relatively recent fusion of two chromosomes.
Our chromosome 2 is the perfect reference point to assuage the most common sorts of denial of this sort of ancestral relationship - that we were just filling in gaps, and that we couldn't really let ourselves be wrong because we would just pick up the pieces and put them into place. The claim that our chromosome 2 developed from fusion of Hominidae chromosomes 2A and 2B is a falsifiable claim, and in fact if research had not so strongly asserted the validity of the claim it is likely that we would see different avenues of research into human ancestry.
Sure, we could bring up other unifying traits of the Hominidae to support the claim. Broad incisors, underdeveloped canines, legs that are longer than arms, males larger than females on average, lacking a tail, opposable thumbs, a distinctly big toe, lack of ischial callosities, upright or semi-upright skeletal structure, dental formula, omnivory, complex social behavior, loss of tree dwelling behavior outside of the basal Orangutan group. None of these is particularly interesting alone, but together they are very compelling.
As I said before the amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions. So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals.
"Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function," says Moran.
"It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version."
"If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognize that the sequences were ever similar.
"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognize any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."
But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.The article itself explains it, I don't really know what your doubts are.
''You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee'' That's wrong, I don't know where you got that from
