You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.<quoted text>Wrong. Wikipedia is an excellent source these days. It has been found to be at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not so easily changed by a whim any more. And if someone makes a false entry it is quickly corrected.
Lastly most articles have links that you can follow making it an excellent starting point.
No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)