Evolution is a Religious Issue

I thought chimps were 99% similar to humans?That means, if you get a 1% difference then that's the difference between a human and a chimp with a myriad of supposed transitionals inbetween.That means that a 1% tweak in the genes makes an astronomical difference.That's not just intelligent, it's genius.

Hi.My point was that 1% would be the difference between a monkey and a human. There's a big difference, which is obvious to anyone. Arguing quantative or qualititive difference is another topic, and also a distraction from the reality that I am stating, that a monkey is a different thing from a human, as can be clearly seen in morphology and behaviour.I still think a monkey wouldn't leave it's tree/niche. So then chimps are no where near like humans? Is that what you're saying? Because I would agree with that.You see, either way, 1% = genius of a designer, 50% means chimps have no relation to humans afterall.Evolutionists have put the spin on it, in order to convince us we are related to the chimp in some way, by saying the difference is 1%. But now that I say this 1% shows a vast difference(in the product you get), then this DNA information is incredibly geniusly made. Now I've said this, it seems you are eager to say that chimps are 50% different.Either way, I think the whole percentage argument seems incredibly vague and can't favour evolution or relatedness to chimps, because quite clearly, like statistics, anyone can make them mean something wonderful when they don't mean much at all.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-01-2005 10:02 AM

It requires genius because if you made a 1% difference to a morris minor car, and got a train, then you'd be bloody intelligent. Exactly. Every wildlife program I see tells me that chimps are 1% different from us. What can that mean to the layman? It forces him to think we are related when that doesn't have to be the conclusion at all.You seem to know your stuff, can you tell me some other percentages possibly? Like the comparison of a banana and a human, or a tiger and a human? If not, just how can a layman search this data and find out what it means for himself rather than being brainwashed by those favouring an evolutionistic answer. Then why exactly is this 1% difference broadcast by evolutionists everytime they get a chance, if it means nothing? Though the burden of proof is on me, the claimant. The true positive is that a monkey would leave it's niche. Has this been shown in nature? Has a monkey ever taken to the plains?