ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp Genomes

I'm new at this site so i might be wrong but,2% of gene distance although it may seem small is actually a very big difference, since even a banana shares 50% of its genes with us. And its just a .5% gene distance that determines all of the different fruits. I personally don't believe in evolution, but in i.d. because there can only be new species of an animal not a new type of animal. for example a cat can "evolve" in to a tiger,lion,cheetah,tabby; but it cant change into a completely new animal like a dolphin. people believe that dolphins evolved from a land mammal like a cow or something, but that's impossible. Because even if it was evolving its nose into a blow hole slowly over millions of years, the animal would have become extinct before the blow hole every had time to fully evolve, since a dolphins blow hole is not connected to its throat it has no problem using it, but a land mammal evolving a blow hole would drown before it every had time to fully evolve it. Also dolphins r completely hairless and have and oily skin to protect them. A land mammal trying to slowly evolve this would die before it could fully adapt. And y is there no fossil evidence showing dolphins ever evolving. Maybe its because they were always there? I don't like how people act like evolution is a scientific fact when it is only a theory. And yes chimps are similar to humans, but what about there differences, do scientist try and ignore this? i don't understand y people think that birds evolved from reptiles. How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers. And is the fact that reptiles are still around today contradict this theory.
please reply-- this is my first post and i have a lot to learn!Edited by AdminPhat, : spellcheck, dude

i dont want anyone to get mad at me here, but how would the first dinasours that had the DNA it needs to make feathers aquire this DNA.
"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the theory of evolution.Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth."
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

If evolution is true then how come there are not any other smart creatures? I mean it is a well proven fact that dolphins have mucn bigger and HIGHERLY developed brains than humans. Every part of the brain that has to do with intelligence such as memmory,emotions,etc is more highley developed in a dolphins brain then in a humans. Then why arent dolphins smart, in comparison to humans,(sure there smart but on the level of chimps,apes,parrots,etc) but they are cleary not even comparably to human intelligence. Maybe there not as smart because animals simply can not become as smart as humans. A dolphin is at the peak of animal intelligence. Humans are the chosen species and there for are much smarter then any animal. And if chimps evolved from a common ancestor as humans then how come chimps never became as smart, we both would have had the same amount of time of evolution. In fact no other primate is even remotly as smart as humans. Sure they can use very simple(and i stress very) tools like twigs and rocks to fish out bugs or crack nuts, but this is mearly monkey see monkey do, or natural instinct. we have never see any of these creatures actually develop a new tool to solve a problem that it didnt see someone else do.

yall have made some very good points about evolution, and i have to admit that alot of it is hard to argue with, but im still not sure im convinced. Edited by NewYorkCityBoy, : typo

Please, can i have some opinions on what i wrote there. I think its all true, but then again i might have some of it wrong, after all im new to this site. and yall r right i take back what i said about if its not in the bible then it cnt be right.

see this website:Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia"We found that relative cerebellum size is significantly greater in the two dolphin species than in any of the primates, including humans. These results suggest that there is possibly expansion of brain structures independent of strictly allometric processes.""For example dolphins have a cerebral cortex which is about 40% larger a human being's. Their cortex is also stratified in much the same way as a humans(1). The frontal lobe of dolphins is also developed to a level comparable to humans. In addition the parietal lobe of dolphins which "makes sense of the senses" is larger than the human parietal and frontal lobes combined (1). The similarities do not end there, most cetaceans have large and well developed temporal lobes which contain sections equivalent to Broca's and Wernicke's areas in humans (1).Another major difference between primate and cetacean brains is that the primate brain favors the motor cortex, while "the cetaceans greatly favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)" (1). In the final measure of brain complexity, neural density dolphins also measure up quite favorable to humans. In certain areas of the brain concerned with "emotional control, objectivity, reality orientation, humor, logically consistent abstract thought and higher creativity" dolphins have an higher ratio of neural density(1). This seems to be correlated with dolphins ability to maintain a healthy emotional state while in captivity; humans in analogous situations often don't fair as well emotionally."
410 error - Gone

"Every part of the brain that has to do with intelligence such as memmory,emotions,etc is more highley developed in a dolphins brain then in a humans.Again, obviously not. Otherwise they would be more intelligent than us."
quote by Dr. Adequate
actually the cerebellum is more highly developed and many other parts r just as developed or almost as developed. but it is hard to compare them since a primate and a water animal have very different brain structures."In the first place, do not speak disparagingly about "monkey see, monkey do"; this is something only the smartest animals can do. A rat, for example, cannot learn how to solve a puzzle by watching another rat solving it, nor, even more remarkably, can it learn how to solve a puzzle by having its paws guided through the necessary motions."
quote by Dr.Adequateactually when a rat comes across a new food it will not eat it unless it sees another rat eat it. and rats can learn to solve puzzels, for example they can go through a maze and each time they do the same maze they get faster at it.ps how do u make those boxes around the quotesEdited by NewYorkCityBoy, : grammer

stop bringin that quote up. i said i was wrong, wat more do u want?

Wow, i had a few TYPOS, big deal, you can still understand it.