So we are made out to be chimp relatives whether our difference is 2%, 6% or 30%. These FACTS not only demonstrate 'some lack of veracity' on the part of evolutionists claims but actually demonstrates that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.
I'm pretty sure the % difference depends on what you're looking at and how you're looking at it. I don't know much about genetics, so bear with me...
DNA can be represented as a long string of letters: ATCGATCG....
Some groups of those letters are genes, other groups code for proteins, some are more 'mechanical' codes like start and stop codons.
If you're comparing just the DNA, the string of letters, you're going to have some % difference between every individual. If you're comparing the genes, that's going to give you some other % difference. If you're comparing just the regions for protein coding, then you're going to get another % difference. Is that correct?
Too, over time as the methods of measuring these differences improve, we'd expect the results to become more accurate and be changed, no?
So, it seems to me that it is to be expected that different numbers for the % difference are going to be out there. Therefore, the fact that we have different numbers does not mean that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.
My assertion that all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes, some flat faced apes such as Lluc, 12myo, changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present.
"Ape" is a very borad categorization... It includes characterisitcs like: is an animal, has a backbone, has mammary glands, is a primate, doesn't have a tail. Humans fit within that classification system so they can rightfully be referred to as "apes".
You can go back upwards throught the categories to see if your statement really makes sense. If you said instead: "all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of
apes mammals", then it doesn't really make much sense ot point out, does it? Of course they're mammals, and of course they're apes.
But on to your point:
changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present
Maybe its is, I don't know. But you're far too "zoomed-in" to be relying on this distinction as some kind of refutation of the Theory of Evolution. It is an established fact that species are not static and that they do evolve. The Theory of Evolution is the only explanation we have on how the changes that we know species go through occur.
However, I suppose you're more going off on the whole common ancestor part, and not the nuts-n-bolts of the process that drives evolution.
I realize common ancestry from things like the nested hierarchy and erv's, and not things like the proposed line of evolutionary links from the common ancestor to modern humans, nor whether or not the detention on Lucy is better explain by dietary changes.
You need to "zoom-out" a bit to get to see the good evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with the other apes. Arguing against these tiny details is missing the whole picture.
Hopefully you are aware of your excuses as to why no half breeds exist today.
Half-breeds do exist today. I've gone so far as to show you pictures of some on multiple occasions and you have yet to address them.
I have presented evidence from within your own biased research and can still defend a creationist claim
You haven't really address my points...
™ Version 4.2
