One of them in a forum true, a forum that is a heavy advocate of evolution, which is none other than Scientific American. The other article is also a scholarly based article that is also an advocate of evolution. Two other reference that i cited are scientific papers that says UCA model is problematic and that the Pb value of Human and Chimp is 66% for MCH class II beta chain genes, and he considered it a low value.
And why if its just an article? It's an interview of course they wont explain their studies in detal, are you fcn retarded? Have you not went to a science expo?
I don't know about you, but in every scientific congress I've been to scientific papers were presented. And I mean papers, not articles. Next time just share the papers instead of an article with no methodology nor detailed data. "Fcn retarded".
Your bold part, i already adressed it that it is indeed currently unlikely, but it's becoming more and more likely as time passes. Youre still in denial, web of life model open that possibility.
It's not becoming more "likely as time passes". It will become more likely when there's an actual evidence against humans being primates. Web of life model doesn't open anything, actually, unless it's supported for complex organisms considered to share a taxon as small as a family. Quote me back when actual evidence for what you're suggesting here is found instead of making another overreaching jump.
Final Verdict, Science and Religion doesn't directly oppose each other
And yes, they do at fundamental levels. Completely different approaches at understanding reality, one depending on constant redefinition in order to refine its findings and the other relying on sacred words from old sources that are constantly redefined, yes, but because they keep getting cornered by the development of science itself and humankind.
Science changes to perfect itself. Religion changes to preserve itself. One evolves (pun intended) through research and falsifiability, the other relies on
ad ignorantiam pre-established explanations and confirmation biases. Don't even try to compare them. The more science discovers, the less useful religion becomes because the less gaps remain unexplained for it to fill; hence why you probably don't buy the religious explanation for tons of events that were attributed to whatever deity until science gave a proper understanding of them long before you were even born (and therefore were educated with).
Everything you believe right now will eventually be debunked too just like any other magical explanation that religion provided yet is debunked today by a scientific approach. And while sadly religion will probably never disappear, surely your god, whichever you randomly believe in, will be replaced by another one day. Just like always happened.
