Of course you can't represent yourself honestly. But in order to claim that God did not have to create in the fashion He did requires that you know a better way to design people.You are mischaracterizing my argument. I do not assert that I know exactly what is required to design a living organism.
Your argument requires that you know better than God.
Which is nowhere near close enough to evidence for common descent. :nono:But we do know how genes work at a sufficient level to say that you can design a gene in many different ways to do the exact same job.
So, which is it? Do you know for a fact that humans could have been designed with less similarity to chimps, or is your argument based on information you do not have?
Because those two creatures are the most similar in design. :idunno:And you can look at a protein that is found in all living things This is why cytochrome C sequences can be used to follow ancestry. Or you can use milk proteins to determine to which mammals whales are most closely related. Why should the sequence be closest to hippos?
You've been through this discussion a hundred times, Alate. Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?
why on earth should we "ignore the 95% number"?
Because it is likely acquired in a fashion designed to obtain the highest number possible and you simply use the word "similar" in more casual conversation as if this 95% number should then be respected.
Or there might even be numerous other models to compare similarity that, if applied to the difference between monkeys and people, would give a far smaller number.
Anyway .. not overly important .. just something to keep in mind. :up: