The short answer to this, which is also the genetics answer, is of course "no."
Demographic Collapse and Ramifications
- Thread starter Let God Arise
- Start date
I can kind of understand your argument in that certain parts of DNA are responsible for massive differences while a huge percentage of DNA is responsible for fairly modest differences. There is a power law type of distribution where certain parts of DNA are far more consequential than other parts so that even a 0.3% difference in DNA if its from a critical part of the DNA can make massive difference to an individual human or animal. But there is no way of analyzing this impact merely from comparing with two people (or animals, etc) have 99% the same DNA or 98..5% the same DNA. So my point is that saying one race is 98.5% genetically similar to chimpanzees and the other race is only 98.1% similar in and of itself does not tell us much.
But when you do see massive differences at a population level, and already admit that chimps have "essentially" the same DNA, you're making conflicting statements. As you concede, it's funny that someone would say "We're essentially chimpanzees" when in reality, nothing is futher from the truth, and quite obviously 1% even DNA differences, or 2%, make the difference between flying, doing what we're doing now, making art and architecture, music, etc.
Slugs and humans share 70% of their DNA.
Around 85% of human DNA is shared with mice.
Humans and pigs share a substantial portion of DNA, about 98%.
It seems very small differences in DNA lead to very different outcomes.
thednatests.com
Around 85% of human DNA is shared with mice.
Humans and pigs share a substantial portion of DNA, about 98%.
It seems very small differences in DNA lead to very different outcomes.
How Much DNA Do Humans Share With Other Animals and Plants?
beenhereKey Takeaways:🐒 Nearly 99.9% of human DNA is identical to that of other humans.🐱 Cats and humans share about 90% of their genetic makeup.🐭 Around 85% of human DNA is shared with mice.🐖 Humans and pigs share a substantial portion of DNA, about 98%.🐔 Over half of human DNA, or…
thednatests.com
You have to buy so much chutzpah just to reference these numbers. The disparity in the minutiae of percentages of DNA do not mean what we think they mean in this context. As others have posted, just about every other organism on the Earth has a DNA similarity to humans that is higher than 70%. Remove yourself from their classroom for a second. Much of modern "science" is a farce, the "scientists" are a priesthood for the enemies of Christ, by which they have deceived the world.
When it comes to chimps, with Africans being the closest to them statistically, there are other explanations that don't have anything to do with the educational version of evolution. It is entirely plausible that they were different from the beginning. Some of these explanations are a bit too harsh to post here, so unless someone wants to know more in a PM I will not elaborate on these.
European DNA today is the same as the DNA of the oldest samples. There has been no mutation, no adaptation mutations. Europeans look, act, think, and react to their environment in much the exact same way as any historical or archaeological proof can demonstrate. I can't speak for the other races, but in over 7000 years, the Aryan race has not "evolved" at all. Rather, it has sample populations with more robust genetic characteristics, some with less, and even the populations apparently missing some traits produce atavists of the older traits (like height) because the chromosomes are still there and apparently even when mated in recessive populations, the recessive genes sometimes still show dominant. So there is no evolution, only flux of dominant genes through periods of time. White men can breed with White women for the next 6 million years, and at that time, they'll still look, and be essentially the same biologically, as we are today. There is no evidence that suggest otherwise. There is no evidence White men evolved from primates. It's never been observed, no missing links have been found, as the fossil record should contain clear chains of mutations, which it absolutely does not. The fossil record shows Aryans were not here, and suddenly we "appeared" in the record.
The Word of God tells us how the Creation came about, and that things are kind after kind. Kinds do not change in midstream without unnatural intervention. I believe the Word of God because I know the prophecies of the Book to be inspired by God, being able to have witnessed their fulfillment in history.
The 'Word of Evolution,' on the other hand, is written by clowns, most of whom deny God. They also, to a great extent, imagine themselves to be Gods.
There is a persistent battle over the precise definition of terms, which is what jews do, they never address the crux of an issue, the nuts and bolts, because they get people arguing about definitions. If you state, "DNA is....", they will even argue with you about what you mean by "is".
These theories fail to explain the irrefutable concept of Irreducible Complexity. Even if you posit the idea that individual organisms could evolve and come from a root creature, be it a "chimp" or something else, this cannot account for the fact that each organism relies on others for survival. Flowers cannot exist without bees, and vice versa. Which came first? The probability that they magically evolved at the same time is astronomical. Evolutionists claim plants came first, then insects. That's impossible, they are inter-dependent. There are millions of examples of this in nature.
The same is true on a cellular level, a cell cannot reproduce without DNA. DNA cannot exist without a cell wall to protect it from environmental oxidation. Cell walls cannot be manufactured without DNA. It's a domino effect. It all must exist at the same time from the beginning. That's a scientific reality that is completely consistent with the wisdom in the Scriptures.
Also evolution represents a complete violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that any system naturally proceeds from order to disorder, entropy increases. Evolution is the exact opposite, claiming that somehow the Earth went from disorder to order and did so randomly. The Second Law as it applied to the "primordial soup" would suggest that the chaos in the soup would tend toward even more chaos, not less. That's truly magical thinking, cleverly worded superstition.
All of this shared DNA nonsense is a racial disarming tactic anyhow, that was the point of its dissemination in the indoctrination centers we know as "universities." It is tower of Babel agitprop because it causes minds to adopt thoughts that lead to inactions and less resistance to Babel's rebuilding.
Last edited:
To be fair, we as individuals violate the second law of thermodynamics all the time, but that's the paradox, we are already ordered and we basically defecate the disorder to maintain our order until we die. Still, your point is that you don't really ever see positive mutations over time in nature, natural history, or even in experiments right now. At best you'll see adaptations, but they don't change an organism fundamentally; they'll usually just give bacteria or some such entity resistance to drug or chemical X for a while.
It's funny that I saw a reel recently of that pretty strange guy Graham Hancock talking about how Francis Crick thought the world was seeded with DNA by some interplanetary or extra terrestrial civilization, since no one can actually explain the origin of DNA, and it's quite clear that it's a code that is intelligent. Even saying that, though, still begs the question, where did that civilization's DNA come from?
It turns out that John Romanides is right in his 1965 article about outer world ideas and science fiction, again showing the Triump of Orthodoxy:
It's funny that I saw a reel recently of that pretty strange guy Graham Hancock talking about how Francis Crick thought the world was seeded with DNA by some interplanetary or extra terrestrial civilization, since no one can actually explain the origin of DNA, and it's quite clear that it's a code that is intelligent. Even saying that, though, still begs the question, where did that civilization's DNA come from?
It turns out that John Romanides is right in his 1965 article about outer world ideas and science fiction, again showing the Triump of Orthodoxy:
The answer is that a minority of our DNA is responsible for most of our differences. That last 2% is more important than the other 98%, if it was the case.
But it turns out "our DNA is 98% similar to chimps" is yet another Talmudic lie, the new "science" says ours DNA is around 90% similar to chimps. I'm sure (((they))) will discover that our DNA is even less similar in the future, but the major point stands.
DNA tells us nothing, and what we see has priority over whatever we think "science" tells us. If "science" says 98% of our DNA is the same (a lie), then that would logically mean the last 2% is most important part of our DNA.