Even the Field of Genetics however was annoyingly ambiguous about Man's descent from early apes.
The one exciting piece of evidence that seemed to relate Man to primates generally,
was Man's chromosome count, which seemed to indicate an early fusion
of two genes.
But unfortunately, this evidence was worthless in addressing the
key issue in the question of the descent of man from apes:
When and how did it happen?
It turns out that the supposed 'fusion' must have taken place
when 'Man' was already 'evolved' into a Man, some 5 million years
AFTER the alleged 'mutation/evolution' of Man from early Hominid ancestors.
Worse than that, this 'fusion' apparently had no significant effect on
the actual change of 'Man' into something else.
Its not an actual mutation of genes per se, but
simply a reorganization of exactly the same DNA content,
and might only affect the ability of the recipient to mate with
other humans. (a mere sterility issue).
So it wasn't germane to the main event after all.
All it definitively proved, was that all men (excepting mutations)
were indeed descended from the same ancestor with 23 chromosome pairs.
Evolutionists next turned to the new 'Mitochondrial' evidence;
but unfortunately that simply didn't help either, because it
merely bracketed the problem with brackets FAR TOO WIDE
to have anything meaningful to say on Descent of Man:
On the one hand, (according to the
latest evolutionary theory)
living things were supposed to have taken on mitochondria in an event
in the very very distant past, so that all modern living things larger
than a single cell contain them. (whether even this theory has merit is
(2) On the other hand, tracing the mitochondrial mutations only seems
to allow confident genealogical connections going back a few hundred
thousand years, nowhere near the needed 10 million years to when
supposedly men evolved from apes.
Another dud-cannon missing the mark, by firing over both bow and stern.