Did you know that the DNA of mice and chickens is actually closer to the human DNA than apes and chimps? So does that mean that humans are chickens?
Source? I am a fan of comparative genomics to a certain extent. Here are the genes (amino acid sequences) for cytochrome b (not all of them complete):
Human:
MTPMRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH
YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL
YSETWNIGIILLLATMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ
WIWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIIAALAALHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD
KITFHPYYTIKDALGLLLFLLSLMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYTILRSVPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAMIPILHMSKQQSMMFRPLSQSL
YWLLAADLLILTWIGGQPVSYPFTIIGQVASVLYFTTILILMPTISLIENKMLK
Mouse:
MTNIRKTHPLFKIINHSFIDLPAPSNISSWWNFGSLLGICLMIQIITGLFLAMH
YTSDTMTAFSSVTHICRDVNYGWLIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHVGRGMYYGSYT
FMETWNIGVILLFAVMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTTLVE
WIWGGFSVDKATLTRFFAFHFILPFIITALVIVHLLFLHETGSNNPTGLNSDSD
KIPFHPYYTIKDILGVILMIMFLMTLVLFFPDLLGDPDNYTPANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYAILRSIPNKLGGVLALILSIMVLMLLPFLHTSKLRSLMFRPITQTL
YWILVANLLVLTWIGGQPVEHPFIIIGQLASISYFSIILIFMPIAGIIEDSLLK
FD
Chimpanzee:
MTPXRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMH
YSPDASTAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFL
YLETWNIGIILLLTTMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQ
WVWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFTFHFILPFIITALTTLHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSD
KITFHPYYTIKDILGLFLFLLILMTLTLFSPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKP
EWYFLFAYTILRSIPNKLGGVLALLLSILILAAIPVLHTSKQQSMMFRPLSQLL
YWLLATDLLILTW
Feel free to compare them yourself, I used some handy dandy software and it gave me:
Human-Chimpanzee: 95.25%
Human-Mouse: 76.19%
Which would seem to contradict your statement. What evidence do you care to bring to the table?
They are so blind-sighted that they can't see that the reason that the DNA of animals and humans is similar is because in order to survive on this planet, animals and humans have to share {list of things}
Right - but that doesn't explain why the animals which the fossil record and morphology strongly agree with genetic evidence with regards to the degree of seperation between any two things. According to your reasoning - the marsupial mole would have very similar DNA with that of a placental mole. According to evolutionary reasoning they should be very different. We have done this test, and found that evolutionary reasoning gets the conclusion we see in reality.
The fact is - that there are billions upon billions upon billions of different ways to genetically create any of the traits you described and the evidence is that if we compare genomes we end up with a nested hierarchy of relatedness which is astonishingly similar to what the fossil record would suggest.
So evolutionists need to get out of their labs and observe what animals and humans breed in reality so they won't jump to erroneous and impossibly bizarre conclusions.
The science of evolutionary biology is incredibly difficult. It would be best to admit that you don't understand it, rather than to suggest you know biology better than the biologists. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed page width