From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

I have run across this idea a few times recently. It makes evolution from monkey to man seem soooo easy. For instance, in Message 185, one can read the statement: Now, chimps and humans are extant species and I realize no evolutionist is actually proposing that chimps evolved into humans (but the official proposal is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor). However, I take issue with what appears to be an oversimplification of the process. It was my understanding that it was not old structures evolving into new structures but that, according to the theory, all changes in structure are the result of mutations to DNA.So, then, are the necessary DNA mutations considered in simple-sounding statments like "just shorten the arms and lose some hair?" (And, really, aren't there more than 5 or 6 differences between the two types of creatures?) Does the transition from chimp to human stay so simple-sounding when trying to mutate from chimp DNA to human DNA in a step-by-step method? Does it stay possible, even?If current science is simply too ignorant to know, then isn't rather un-scientific-like to say such things?--Jason

Thread copied to the From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! thread in the Human Origins forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.