The article states that humans and chimps share almost 99% of our genes. The article questions how "we can be so alike-and yet so different." I'll tell you how we're different! People walk, talk, have feelings, emotions, we have SOULS. No scientist can prove that a freaking chimp has a soul. Some may argue that apes walk, talk, communicate and have feelings, but all animals have some form of communication with their species, they all have some mode of transportation, and are happy or sad. But have you seen a chimp lately? They also pee themselves, swing from trees, and eat bugs off of each other. Yes, there are some pretty stupid human beings out there, but I'd say over all, humans don't do any of those things.
My favorite was the picture in the article that was half man, half-ape. We look nothing alike! Apes have protruding foreheads, wrinkly under eye areas, small half-round ears, ugly noses, and hair almost completely covers them! Last time I looked at a human, it looked, well, HUMAN.
Another contributing writer says on page 47, "By comparing our genetic blueprint with those of our closest relatives, scientists are starting to learn exactly how different we are and what those differences mean." Starting to learn how different we are? What the differences mean? I'll tell you! We are different because we are humans, and apes are apes. The difference means that we as humans, work, play, go to school, set goals, live lives. Apes eat bananas and swing from trees. Is this rocket science? I don't think so!
Now some researcher named Paabo is researching Neanderthals and trying to figure out the history with those guys. I don't think that there was ever a Neanderthal that walked this planet. There was never some stupid caveman that walked around and beat animals with a club and lived in a cave. I'll tell you what these people are. People. I don't understand why we have to study them. They lived life the way they wanted to with the resources they had at the time. Whoopdie do! They are getting all this information from a skull they dug up. But wait! Let me quote what the article states:
"The job isn't an easy one. Like any complex organic molecule, DNA degrades over time, and bones that lie in the ground for thousands of years become badly contaminated with the DNA of bacteria and fungi. Anyone who handles the fossils can also leave human DNA behind. After probing the remains of about 60 different Neanderthals out of the 400 or so known, Paabo and his team found only two with viable material. Moreover, he estimates, only about 6% of the genetic material his team extracts from the bones turns out to be Neanderthal DNA."
If my calculations are correct, only .5percent of these fossils can be probed for viable information. Of the .5%, they can only use 6% of the genetic material even turns out to be Neanderthal DNA? Why didn't they check first to see if it was a Neanderthal before wasting all of the time and money they could have put to better use? And how can you come up with conclusions like this when that is the percentage one is working with? Is it just me or is this a bunch of bull?
Haven't scientists gone over this issue time and time again? Isn't it time to give this whole theory a freaking rest? Can't we agree to disagree? I don't think we'll ever find anything new. Why? Because humans did not come from chimps in the first place.
It's funny the amount of people in America who claim to be Christians (83%), and the amount of people who DON'T believe in evolution (72%). Obviously these people probably believe what the Bible says: God made us in his image. Right there is the answer. These scientists can put away their DNA samples and finally put this issue to rest for all I care.
Published by Leigh S.
Single and Fabulous! View profile
- Time Magazine's Most Influential Leaders and Revolutionaries of 2007Following are the names of the Leaders R Revolutionaries on Time's List of Most Influential People.
Why President Vladimir Putin Won TIME Magazine's 2007 Person of the YearAn analysis of the factors behind President Putin's win, and why the strongest contenders for the title such as Al Gore and J.K. Rowling lost.
Time Magazine Names Vladimir Putin as the 2007 "Person of the Year" Vladimir Putin inherited the shadow of a great World Power and helped restore its place in global politics.- Time Magazine Misses Mark on OrganicsI am distraught by the fact that Dr. Gupta has completely left out a very important part of the equation- OUR ENVIRONMENT! Just like many selfish Americans, he seems to only be concerned about himself and fails to see...
- Time Magazine's Most Influential Builders and Titans The people on this list have power and visions that help to shape the world. The list of Builders and Titans include leaders of industry that shape the world though business, finance and innovations.
- Who Will Be Time Magazine's Person of the Year?
- Who Will Be Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" for 2007?
- Does Time Magazine Cover Photo Disparage Mitt Romney?
- Time Magazine Helps Nintendo Wii to Win Console Wars
- Hooray! Time Magazine Has Nominated Us People of the Year
- Time Magazine's Most Influential Entertainers of 2007
- Time Magazine's List of the Most Influential Heroes & Pioneers of 2007.
- Time Magazine, October 6, 2006 Google: How many people believe in evolution? Google: How many people are Christian?




10 Comments
Post a CommentI was very impressed with your "Who is God?" article. This one however is not carefully reasoned. Your arguements are unsound and based on emotion rather than research. Very disappointing.
As you say, this isn't rocket science...it is science, though...and every bit as valid. Evolution is science. Religion is something you "believe" in...Science is something you either acknowledge as true, or choose to ignore (the kind of decision an ape might make, eh?) you can choose to ignore that 2 plus 2 equals 4 all you want, but it doesn't make it equal 5, no matter how much you "believe."
Sabrina said:
Well, we know we have souls, so we don't need to prove it.
Since you are making an affirmative claim there is a soul, the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove it. Therefore, prove it. The reason you can't prove it is becuause underneath your profession of faith, there is a sleeping giant of doubt there is such a thing as an immaterial soul. It's all based on superstition!
Having faith that you have a soul is not proof. All you have is a wild guess that you have one. If you KNOW you have a soul, prove it. The existence of a soul is a myth.
Well, if you want to disagree, thats fine with me, but I KNOW I have a soul.
no, we have FAITH that we have souls. that is the difference.
Well, we know we have souls, so we don't need to prove it.
"No scientist can prove that a freaking chimp has a soul." As opposed to all those scientists who have proved that humans have souls.
oh boy, is this country in trouble.
Are the two REALLY mutually exclusive? If you look at those (and other) poll statistics, there are millions of Christians who also believe in evolution. Basically, lots of people believe you can have both a God who created us in His image and a process of evolution... What if God designed for us to descend from apes?