[Dimensio]

Ok. I revise it to say: Evolutionists say that because we have super duper expialidocious common characteristics with the DNA of chimps, we have the same common ancestor.

This is not an accurate statement. A more accurate statement would be that in addition to extensive fossil evidence, markers in analagously identical positions of non-coding regions of the DNA of both humans and chimpanzees show identical viral insertions, providing strong evidence for descent from common ancestry of the two species. This is more than just common characteristics in the DNA, this is common characteristics in DNA segments where a difference would have no effect on physical characteristics of the organism.

[microgood]

A more accurate statement would be that in addition to extensive fossil evidence, markers in analagously identical positions of non-coding regions of the DNA of both humans and chimpanzees show identical viral insertions, providing strong evidence for descent from common ancestry of the two species. This is more than just common characteristics in the DNA, this is common characteristics in DNA segments where a difference would have no effect on physical characteristics of the organism.

Thanks for the elaboration. I was wondering what your thoughts are on post #202, where a different viral insertion seems to indicate we do not have common ancestry.

[metmom]

This is more than just common characteristics in the DNA, this is common characteristics in DNA segments where a difference would have no effect on physical characteristics of the organism.

And how would we know that there would be no effect on the physical characteristics? Wouldn't it be better stated *no KNOWN effect*? And what about non-physical characterists? Has science reached the point of being able to claim that they know for sure every possible explanation for every bit of genetic material and for it's placement within the DNA?