Posted January 23, 2014
The way we do this is by examining bone structure and DNA. When you look at DNA, what you're trying to find is patterns in the code. These patterns are shared by all common creatures, yet all unique to the individual in some way. In the case of these primitive bone structures, ape-like humanoids, we share a very heavy common amount of it, 99.9% or there about is patterned with our own. Modern apes meanwhile share 98% of our pattern. This could mean nothing, a very big coincidence, or it could mean correlation, that there is somehow a common ancestry between our two species. We can trace many species backwards towards fossil records during the Jurassic era and prior and point out that elephants are actually quite related to spiders, somehow more the horses. The missing link that people look for, that always gets talked about, is this ancestor that links Homo Sapiens to Neanderthal, and we've found a number of varied skeletal remains that do so, but not the one that's missing. Maybe there isn't a link at all, but evidence says that there has to be, missing somewhere in the world. It may be only one fragment of one shoulder sitting in the calcium deposits of a cave in Africa, but that's the hope that it can be found.
As for the early idea, single-celled to human, can't be found. Won't be found. The best you can do is try to re-create the circumstances that caused life to be born. Humans have managed to artificially create proteins and amino acids, last time I'm aware of, the two required substances of any life based organism, but where that went has been so long I couldn't tell you, and all we can ask is that you look at evolution as a very convincing theory, a very plausible and thorough theory, that so far does not have any evidence against it. You just need to find it, and an evidence that doesn't come from simply "Because that's what I was told."
It doesn't seem very likely or logical to me that any Ape shares anything in the range of 98% of our DNA
I have a way of understanding DNA as if it were computer software and if i was to imagine what it would take to program an ape to function as an ape and then tell the programmer "ok now program a human but your only allowed to change the software by 2%, can you do it?" And i cannot imagine any circumstance where that would be at all possible.
Remember years ago when scientists would say we only use 2% of our brain capacity? As the years go by, with more knowledge, that percentage keeps increasing - i would bet a similar process with that Ape DNA percentage with human will keep increasing as the years go by.
Rather, it's something a little closer I suppose to doing something like version number and ASCII writing or DOS code. Every Microsoft program in existence runs off of DOS code software. In those programs you'll see similarity of lines, run-programs and directories, folders, open this, close that, run this, make that noise, make that spin, so forth. The variation comes from building what exists. Someone took code and created Pong. Another person took code and created Windows. From Windows came newer versions of windows, came programs like Word, Calculator, Office. From Pong game Castle Wolfenstein, which led to 3D Wolfenstein, then Doom, then all of the sudden you've got Halo 3, Grand Theft Auto, you've got Legend of Zelda and Mario and Metroid and Saint's Row and The Sims, Bejewled, so forth.
Evolution is looked at with that aspect, that you're building off of old genetic material, and the shifts are gradual, changing between versions and models. Sometimes you cross that code with something new that just so happens to work so perfectly that they cross together and work. If you need an example, Zebras, Horses, Donkeys can all interbreed with one another despite vastly different locations and genetics. Humans are looking for the offspring of two such potential parents that lead up to us basically that combine the genetics of both parents.
There isn't any conflict between science and religion, there's only conflict between people's versions of their religions and their lack of understanding of science. There are many atheists and agnostics who also don't understand science too. It's an education problem.
Post edited January 23, 2014 by QC
