Do people really share a common ancestor with chumps?

Question

Let the tragic theivery begin

Why thank you Viccar...want to change my oil?

Answer 1

Some have yet to evolve beyond that point...=0)

Answer 2

Forensic conclusions are made, not by scientific-method "operation science", but by the reasoning of "origin science" which is based on theoretical deduction, indirect proofs, irreproducible singularities (i.e., one-time-only happenings), evidence from the unobserved past, and historical or hypothetical events beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, the study of origins (creation vs. evolution) and the determination of DNA lineages are amazingly similar in that the interpretation of the evidence is not open to empirical disproof.


Please also keep in mind that, according to a biblical worldview, it is not God that classifies man as a primate along with apes and monkeys. It is the evolutionary mindset that considers man to be a member of the mammalian order that also includes prosimians, tarsioids, and anthropoids. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 96%-98.7% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1.3%-4% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. Be aware that the human haploid genome consists of some 3 billion nucleotide pairs of DNA! The fact that approximately 98% of the 1.3-to-4% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water!! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference!

The infinitely more significant fact that each specific kind of organism has its own individually-unique DNA molecular structure, not 100% identical to any other kind of organism, is academically dismissed when considering comparative anatomy, structural homologies, or molecular similarities. Indeed, the very design of DNA is orchestrated to prevent one genetic blueprint from becoming a clone of a different kind of hereditary program. It is hard to imagine a more solid evidence for special creation--and against a common ancestor--than the mere existence and function of DNA!

To the objective mind, similarities should indicate a common designer at least as much as they indicate a common ancestor. It would be logical that an Intelligent Designer would use the same efficient plan to code for proteins in all living organisms genetically engineered by Him. In fact, based on their comparable structure, one would predict blueprint similarity between humans and apes indicative of "common design in advance", not "common dice and chance".


The original 1987 study used mitochondrial tracer DNA (mtDNA), the chromosomes of which are passed unchanged from mother only to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents. The study involved 136 human women with widely-varying geographical and ethnic diversity. The analysis was said to point back to a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a human female living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. However, it has now been determined that both the entering order of data input and the interpreting of data output were prejudiced toward an African origin for "mitochondrial Eve" based on evolutionary presuppositions.


In conclusion, allow me to quote a paragraph from Marvin L. Lubenow's excellent book [a CEM resource] entitled, 'Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils' (1992, pp.71-72):

"The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, is based on mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking the question, When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged? Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information about those sequences that he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee [Marcia Barinaga, "Choosing a Human Family Tree," 'Science' 255 (7 February 1992): 687]. In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance."

Answer 3

No chumps in my family tree. We were always somewhat above average at athletics.

-----------------edit---------

Judging by the types of responses you got, and the "thumbs down" that I got, I take it that most people didn't catch your misspelling. I assume that you did this on purpose, and that it was a joke.

Answer 4

Never in my family. But most monkey lover Atheist do, so maybe in your family or you.

Answer 5

lol... unfortunately my little brother was never very good at sports...

Answer 6

No

Answer 7

Sexy avatar.

Answer 8

No.