The Common Ancestor?

Some of the journals that I have read state that humans are 96% the same as in chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. However, I also read that some of the retroviruses sequences are species specific in each one.

The neanderthal DNA also says we are 96% the same. They appear closer to humans then chimps yet the difference is still 4%. These percentages seem to contradict depending on what journal you read so this may not prove anything yet.

There hasn't been any other species between Neanderthal and modern humans is there in the fossil record?

Do you use base pairs, codons, genes, or proteins to determine what sets us apart from other forms of life?

If you ignore insertions and deletions of DNA in all species, would we be 99% the same?

How do you know it was deleted if it is no longer there anymore? The same question for insertions, how do you know that it wasn't always there in a genome sequence?

I agree that "common ancestry" should not be used since it is too messy and it is based on speculation. The geographical environmental gene pool that defines a specific ecosystem is the primary initiator for evolution to take over for changes in appearances of the biota over time. That is a better explanation.

Thanks Taq, that makes sense.

If we take the human lineage completely out of the picture, how did the chimp, gorilla and orangutan diverge? Did both diverge from one? These 3 live in specific locations so its hard to grasp that they would have cross paths in history.

Response to diagram on common ancestry. Could you please now add in Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthal, Homo Cro-magnom, woodland apes. and then modern humans.

Thanks

Woodland apes are australopithecine which may be the same as australopithecus. My error.

Edited by barbara, : No reason given.

Edited by barbara, : correction

I read that the genetic differences between chimps and bonobos is 3% and bonobos are chimps but are separated by boundaries, their social behavior is the complete opposite in that chimps are very aggressive while the bonobos are peaceful.

Another article said that our lineage split at the same time as the chimps did from a common ancestor. The 4% difference between us and chimps seems to put us farther back then chimps and bonobos.

Dr A's drawing is not based on evidence. It is purely speculative. There is no DNA evidence of those species that lived 2.5 million yrs ago when they split. Today's DNA between them are not identical or even close. There are no fossils of gorilla and only a few of orangutan. The fossils of chimps look very much like they do today.

Genetics claim that a fresh water dolphin is not related to the salt water dolphin so do you really expect me to believe we are related to chimps based on a silly diagram? Please stop turning evolution into a religion before its loses all credibility. Common ancestry cannot be proven so why waste your time?

Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
________________________________________

|--------------- orangutans
---|
| |----------- gorillas
|---|
| |--- chimps
| |---|
|---| |--- bonobos
|
|------- humans
Dr A.
Did you use the Fitch parsimony method based on morphological analysis? If indeed, this is the case then you couldn’t add in the other species of human ape-like creatures in this diagram. There is no DNA evidence for all of them except Neanderthal and modern man. The molecular clock is unrealistic even for the ones you do have listed here. These models present hypothesis and in no way conclude that it is a fact.
Do you realize how many morphology differences there are in dog breeds in contrast to your analysis based on morphology similarities in primates? But yet a dog is still a dog and a human is still a primate. There is no consistent measure of understanding it.

The human and mouse genome shows there is one difference in 14 genes on chromosome 16 are not human. Chromosome 21 in humans is not found in a mouse. All of the rest of the human genes are found in a mouse and most are grouped together and in the same order in both of them.

You can use a mouse as being as common ancestor if you wanted and use genetics as evidence. Would this be true?

The human skull diagram that shows all of the species of ape-like man up to modern human is not clear of what is being proven here.
You can take all breeds of dog's skulls and line them up and it will show various sizes in skulls, these are all living today.

This sounds good but in order for this to happen these several beasts would have to be able to sexually reproduce offspring. Currently there is a couple that do this but their offspring is usually infertile.

The dog ancestry is a dead end. Apparently the specific breed ancestry was never documented.

I'm sorry I thought that all breeds of dogs was man's creation