Has anyone noticed the trend as the percentage similarity of chimps/humans comes down? For many years it was 98 or 99%, then after a few years it comes down some more, but the rhetoric increases.
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. "Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
"We are apes in every way" seems to be predicated on, "long arms" and, "tailless bodies". Is that, "every way?" Oh dear, the list has ran out fast, four features and one of them he gets wrong, despite being an anatomist. Another he gets wrong is, "habits". That's just plainly bad logic, because I don't recall an ape painting an oil on canvas or playing tennis, or worshipping God, the last time I looked.
This expert doesn't seem to know that all apes have arms longer than their legs but humans don't. This guy is called a, "primate scientist", yet doesn't seem to know why a fully bipedal human would need relatively long arms, for balance. So the reason apes have longer arms is for brachiation, arboreal locomotion. Humans have arms of a certain favourable length for reasons of bipedalism;
Arm swing in human bipedal walking is a natural motion that each arm swings with the motion of the opposing leg. Swinging arms in an opposing direction with respect to the lower-limb reduces the angular momentum of the body, balancing the rotational motion produced during walking. Although such pendulum-like motion of arms is not essential for walking, recent studies point that arm swing improves the stability and energy efficiency in human locomotion. https://en.wikipedia...uman_locomotion
So it seems that we only have one thing left in common with apes, we are tailless. (but of course, apart from primate features, collar-bone, forward face, etc,..but then my argument isn't that we are not primates but I refer to the differences within the group of primate.)
It also seems the "96%" figure instead of 99% similarity, seems to make evolutionists argue that we are even MORE like apes, not less (contradictory reasoning).
Indeed, the more the percentage decreases, the more the rhetoric increases; "we are apes!! Not just descended from apes like Darwin said, but now it is 96% instead of 99% so we are in fact now classed as super-duper apes, even super duper calafragalisticapespialidocious , ape-apes, of the super duper ape category, ape, ape, ape,....just keep saying it, then say it some more. APES!!!"
What will they say when eventually the percentage comes down to 93% or less?
Here is a fictional prediction;
Reporter; "Dr B, what does this new figure mean?" Dr B; "Well Sally, it's remarkable, I mean you just won't believe it, but this shows that before, even though we thought we were apes, and then we knew we were apes with the 96% figure, now it is 93%, then I have to tell you - this is the planet of the apes! Ape, ape, ape! I cannot tell you how ape humans are! In fact, what is a human? Ditch that term! For now I speak as all apes speak, as a thorough ape! A super-duper, fender bending, gun-toting, super-ape. I've had my costume made, I will appear in the latest musical, as super-ape." Reporter: "That's the best science I have heard in years. Your logical prowess never ceased to amaze me, what an ape-solutely flushbunking success for evolution theory!"