DaRev said:
Here’s what your scientist friends say when asked:
Is human DNA closer to chimpanzees or pigs?
Answer:
Humans and chimpanzees share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and pigs. This results in humans sharing more of their genome with chimps than they do with pigs.
Even though a human's genetic code is more like a chimp's than it is like a pig's, all eukaryotic organisms share a significant amount of genetic code, vertebrates share even more, and mammals share even more than that; a human's DNA more closely resembles a pig's than it does a lizard's, and it more closely resembles a lizard's than it does a bacterium's.
How close are pigs to humans DNA?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
if you compare humans to almost any other animal on the planet today, you would find that about 99% of the genetic structure is the same.
The simple fact is that not because a Monkey or a Pig or whatever animal’s DNA says it can have legs, eyes, brain etc, doesn’t make it human, nor proves or even suggests an evolutionary process. DNA that closely resembles human DNA doesn’t make it human or prove evolution. Apparently we could have evolved from a fly or a banana giving the evolutionary opportunity. Sharing close DNA makeup does not mean that moss evolved into a rose, a gold fish into a whale nor a monkey into a man – that is just want scientist theorise and have been on a never-ending pursuit to prove it as fact, and until then, calls it fact nonetheless.
Anyways, I tire of this discussion.
|
I like how you posted a survey response answer and attempted to pass it off as the scientist's testimony. We don't share 99% of DNA with all animals, not even our closest ancestors. It's much closer to 96-98, depending on source.

I think this should resolve your issue of understanding. This is a chromosomal representation for different animals. It's fairly easy to identify which are most similar and least similar in this regard. (http://www.dna-rainbow.org/species-comparison/)
Shared DNA is absolutely evidence for evolution.
Now you're simply confused about phylogentic constructs...plant life diverged from animal life, so no, we could not have evolved from a banana. Postulating that we evolved from an insect is equally stupid. Start reading about phylogenetics because again you prove your complete ignorance on the topic - vertebrates and invertebrates are divergent as well.
This is a pretty large image so I'll just link it instead of posting here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
Anyway, it's quite clear you're devoted to your presuppositions and haven't bothered to read any of my sources, so I'll leave it alone in the hope that some day you set aside your petty disagreement with things you do not understand and actually educate yourself.
Tell the Sky Wizard I said hello.
ToraTiger said:
+1,000,000. I was having the same argument with a someone at school, and I used that exact same metaphor that humans could of evolved from vegetables, wood or Pokemons using the evolutionary logic. Such a fiasco. o.o And also to |
Wow. See above. You might be more clueless than DaRev.