Replies

Neanderthal DNA has been analyzed, the result being that it has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee",

Chimp DNA and Human DNA are pretty damned close (sharing between 98 and 99 percent of the same genes). If Neanderthals are "about half way" (which is a pretty vague term) then they share between 99 and 99.5 percent of their genes with us. In other words, they ain't that much different.

You ever date chimpanzees? I mean if they're that close, why not??

Chimp DNA and Human DNA are pretty damned close (sharing between 98 and 99 percent of the same genes). If Neanderthals are "about half way" (which is a pretty vague term) then they share between 99 and 99.5 percent of their genes with us. In other words, they ain't that much different.

“If the exact comparisons were proof of similarity then we would have to consider certain bacteria which has exactly the same genes contained in humans as do several other various and obviously different creatures…The differences are obviously more than one or two percent between a chimp and a human. The association in the genome is therefore an erroneous indication of similarity because it defies the obvious. Which do we believe the hidden complication and largely unknown operation of the genome or the obvious evidence that is clearly demonstrated and observed and proved fact? Why would we throw out Occam’s razor here and add further complication to a simple problem? “

“If however the exact operation of the genome of both creatures was know then we could gain some valuable insight as to the reasons for the differences in result even though on the surface they are very similar. The other obvious reason why similarity of genome is not proof of common descent is the basic similarity of the two creatures. They are both animals with lungs, hearts, nervous systems, two hands and two legs etc.. So why wouldn’t there be quite a bit of similarity in the genome as well? If the genome were static and there was a direct correlation to its structure and the resulting organism then the comparison would be a valid proof. It clearly is not, so we are dealing with more of the association and causation errors that the theory of evolution is littered with. …”

True. We're basically a brainier, naked species of chimpanzee. If we still had the fur chimps have, no one would go around claiming we weren't related. Its factual evidence of the existence of evolution as a mechanism for species selection, adaptation, and survival in a given environment. Charles Darwin's genius was to develop natural selection as an empirically testable theory through bringing together unrelated strands of evidence into a coherent whole. His theory has been revised, most notably by Stephen J. Gould in his recent 1,500 page tome The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory, but the central Darwinian edifice still remains standing, because no one has found a better explanation for the diversity of life on earth and why organisms seem so suited for their particular niche in nature. It should be added here the importance of evolution lies not in its discussion of ultimate origins, on which it is silent, but rather in its acceptance of nature as it is and not as we human beings would like to think it is. The rest of creation is amoral and operates in ways that offend our sensibilities. We don't have to deny God created the universe, the world, and life in it, but when we look at life on earth since its emergence, we come to realize that it doesn't play favorites and there have been species that existed that for various reasons have vanished. The mechanism of evolution forces us puny humans to wake up to the fact that for all of our resourcefulness and cleverness, there is no guarantee we won't become extinct in the future. No wonder people feel threatened by Darwin's theory; its an uncomfortable reminder that we're guided by biologic forces as old as life itself as well as by the sum of our behaviorial choices. So whether we like it or not, the fact remains evolution is a fact and it has to be admitted that Charles Darwin remains the greatest biologist who ever lived.

Chimp DNA and Human DNA are pretty damned close (sharing between 98 and 99 percent of the same genes). If Neanderthals are "about half way"

One thing about evolutionists - scientific proof does not matter. All that matters is that their theory has to have an ancestor to man because the whole purpose of the theory is to deny that God is the Creator of man. However, as the Pope said, truth cannot deny truth and that is why the descent of man from monkeys keeps getting disproven by real science:

DNA clues to Neanderthals

Scientists have analysed the DNA of a third Neanderthal in an attempt to shed light on the genetic history of early humans. The results suggest that, like modern humans, Neanderthals expanded from a relatively small number of individuals.

And there is no evidence to indicate that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, something that has always been a bone of contention among experts.
From: BBC News