There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA.

This is egregiously, disastrously wrong.

Both human and plant cells are Eukaryotic. They have a nucleus, organelles and cytoskeleton. That’s why the DNA sequence is similar, and it is not any kind of argument against evolution that they are similar.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical.

The person who produced this stuff is lying with statistics.

If you want to tie yourself to dishonesty like this, feel free. e.g. The “therefore” part is only true if DNA sequences in genomes are random sequences of nucleotides, but they are not. The sequences are non-random, constrained by function and ancestry so that the sequence similarities are strong indications of common ancestry, so strong that no other explanation is plausible.

“And if that’s the case, what other tricks has God played?”

That’s easy. God has buried fossils all over the planet of intermediate species, such as dinosaurs with feathers and whales with legs, to test the faith of his flock. Good sheep like FaceLift say “baaa” in the face of such temptation then imbibe more of the holy spirit.

I’m not sure what the link to a muddle headed piece of apologetics is supposed to show. How about reading some real scientific research on the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and how it informs human evolution.

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter humanâ€?? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

Irrelevant demolition of his own straw man.

Those data simply mean that all life forms were related at some time and the closer the relationship the greater the correlation of DNA.

If one accepts the random thesis, then it is equally likely for a chimp to have 25% of human genes and a daffodil to have 98%. Now that would be a surprise. But unsurprisingly that never is the case.

And if humans were a different creation, why did God use exactly the same CAGTs as with daffodils? Did she do this to test the faith of 21st century evolution denialists?

And if that’s the case, what other tricks has God played? Maybe the whole of the universe has been dealt with marked cards and we are living in the midst of a con game of truly cosmic proportions, including for that matter all evidence of the existence of God and all human perceptive acuity for the numinous.

Now that’s the ultimate PoMo world.

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarityâ€? line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter humanâ€?? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes…. Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added).

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome).

How do you explain how humans share about 98% of our DNA with Chimps.

Yet as primates, monkeys, mammals, reptiles are proven to have an older more remote origin, we share less and less, but still some, DNA with the animal world.

Were all animals made from “dust”, but just older different “dust”?

There is a simple reason why the supernatural is ignored. Because there is no evidence. You can believe all you want that you are mystical formation of dust but the evidence of that humans and apes shared a common ancestor is overwhelming and one of the most elegant, well documented and affirming discoveries of science.

Thing is, provided you modern ape descendents…

So you think you came from somewhere different FaceLift? Reverse Rapture maybe?