Disproving the Bible

[Esquilax]

Here is my problem. They listed three possible reasons for orphaned genes--none of which was that the organisms did not share a common ancestor (which would fit ALL the facts). You said that there is no bias in science. Tell me why this is not bias?

Because the weight of evidence for common ancestry is so great and plentiful that your proposed fourth possibility would represent such a leap backwards from what we know to be true that the problem wouldn't be these orphaned genes anymore, it would be reconstructing large swathes of the field of genetics and taxonomy.

The reason why nobody is considering that they might not have a common ancestor is the same reason why nobody reconsiders the idea that light refraction in the atmosphere causes the sky to be blue every time we get a cloudy day: the sheer weight of the evidence is so great that a few exceptions aren't enough to foist it away.

Not to mention, your contention here is an argument from ignorance fallacy to begin with: "I don't know where these genes fit in" means we aren't bound to accept any answers without further evidence. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work within the framework of available facts. You're basically asking that we start from zero on this question, as though the past century of biological science never happened, because it's a good gap for you to put god into.