Evolution.

[Kirby]

Shadow I am 100% sure that the DNA is 99% similar. Actaully there is only 21 diferent chemicals in the DNA out of thousands of DNA chemicals. The diference between you and me is like 2 or 3 chemicals.

[The Editor]

"home school textbook company presents: creation science ed. 4. copy-write 1936."

That is not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

[Shadow]

"home school textbook company presents: creation science ed. 4. copy-write 1936."

And this, the beginning of mocking everything I post, is my warning that I've stayed a little too long.

And I refuse to post anything else for debate on this forum.

[God]

because you can't mount a counter-argument after you get proven wrong?

stop being a girl shadow

[The Editor]

God's right, you should try and prove that there is a peer reviewed scientific paper supporting your claim. Of course we know there isn't, so maybe you should just admit it rather than running away.

[Shadow]

Okay, I'll go find a source for that information. And then you'll laugh/dismiss it as nonsense.

I'm not being a girl, I just know when to drop it because the people on the other end of the debate don't take you seriously.

[Shadow]

Ok, here one of many articles I could give you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

Edit: yeah, my figures were off, but it's been months since I originally read this stuff.

[The Editor]

We don't take it seriously because it is demonstrably wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

First things first, 95% similarity is still a similarity and shows that we are related. In fact 95% is a very large similarity. Just because we might not share a common ancestor as recently as first proposed doesn't render the whole theory junk. That's the beauty of science, it's free to adapt as necessary. Besides, getting one small detail wrong isn't cause to reject a whole theory. After all, pi isn't 3, right?

If every living species was created by a god at the same time that would raise a big question: why do they have similarities in the first place? What would be the point? And while we're on the subject of creation, why does a giraffe have a nerve that runs all the way from the base of the jaw to the base of its neck, then doubles back up the other side of the oesophagus to return to a point virtually next to where it was to begin with? It would be much more efficient just to go up, but it doesn't. Evolution can explain this (the nerve endings are in a different position in fish, as is the neck [which fish don't really have]. As they began to evolve necks the nerve had to extend as well due to the layout. This continued until now, resulting in giraffes with nerves 6ft long. Evolution couldn't change this because any small mutation in the opposite direction would have resulted in the nerve failing to connect and death). Creationism on the other hand has to fall back on "God works in mysterious ways." Funny how often his "mysterious ways" suggest other conclusions.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, variation between humans and chimpanzees only serves to show that we are evolving. There are similarities and differences. What else would you expect from gradual change over time? If they were completely different then the creationist perspective would stand and evolution would be wrong. But they aren't completely different. Instead they show a vast majority of similarities coupled with key differences. Why would a creator bother with that? Even a 20% similarity would be evidence of evolution because it would show that we are very distantly related. Why else would there be any similarity at all? We might be wrong about how closely related we are, but that doesn't show that the theory of evolution itself is wrong.

Also, try reading your own sources first.

Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included.