the gateway
Member
98% does not equal 100%. Yes we are related but thats all.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Chicken and the Egg
- Thread starter the gateway
- Start date
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
camanintx
Well-Known Member
They were reared by their parents, who were reared by their parents, with each previous generation requiring less and less rearing until you get to an organism which was capable of rearing itself. How hard is this to understand?
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
But we're not from chimps. We're like, cousins (with Neanderthals etc being our brothers).
Chimps are part of the "Pan" genus, not the "Homo" genus.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Leave the Bush family out of it
Niiiice. Zing! :yes:
the gateway
Member
And how do you know thats true?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I always suspected that about the English.
In Ireland we think of them as our ancecstors
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I always suspected that about the English.
In Ireland we think of them as our ancecstors
:biglaugh:
TheStrife
Self-Contained
all humans share only about 95% of our DNA with each other... yet we are the same species. explain that. if we do not share 100% how are we possibly the same at all? (asking based off what you said.):sarcastic
the gateway
Member
Thats untrue
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
the gateway
Member
so strife youre saying youre more closely related to a chimp than say ur sister.....well u say that chimps are more closely related (98%) while some humans are just 95%
Jacksnyte
Reverend
Last edited:
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
No, with a simply you will share nearly 100% DNA, but as your relation becomes more distant the amount shared approaches 99.8%. He got some of the numbers wrong.
This visual aid should make it more clear
File:Human-phylo-tree.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noaidi
slow walker
Are you aware that populations evolve into new species and not the individuals? By this, I mean a human baby was not born from a non-human mother. The population that were 'becoming human' could still interbreed and, as such, gave birth to their own kind. Thus, they would be reared by their mothers and not, as your statement above implies, by themselves.
the gateway
Member
My statement never implied that the first human baby was reared by itself but rather by God.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh, it's just terrible reasoning. Something someone probably told him.
When you refuse to think, sometimes you forget what you say - kinda like lying. The more disjuncted thoughts you have, the more difficult it is to remember what you've said and how you defend it.