Hmm. Hard to answer a question with an apparent answer. Simple, what you are seeing today in chimpanzee DNA is a product of human invasion? How else to say it? We likely will not find the original chimp that God created.
I guess if you say so it must be so. Apparently you don’t have to support your rapid-fire statements any longer? Did you earn that right by being here for a certain length of time on the forum?
Edit: if we needed a beast closest like us to exploit in the study of disease, will you choose a squirrel? Why am I answering these inept questions?
Go ahead and explain why whatever exploitation you’re talking about requires genetic similarity. So far I don’t see it. What is the point of genetic similarity? What is the point of nested hierarchy?
Generally, we don’t use chimps for the study of disease. Aside from the ethical reasons, their generations are too long and they’re too big to make good study animals. What you would need for that would be a mouse with a nearly human genome. Even better, some kind of free-living human cell culture. Why didn’t God make one of those for us? No, that reason doesn’t work. Also, it doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy.
You haven’t supported a singe one of your gobbledygook anti-science claims since you started.
You spoke of “a human-chimp ancestry”. So I simply assumed that you knew what you meant. And why would it be hard to answer a question with an apparent answer? (If the answer is apparent to you, why not share that answer with the rest of us?)
Once again it is hard to understand what you are writing. Help us out so we can comprehend that writing.
I’ve never heard anyone make any claims about finding signs of “human invasion” in chimpanzee DNA. Indeed, I have no idea what “human invasion” would mean in that context. (The term makes no sense to me.)
Only you can make that determination. (You are the only one who knows what you are trying to say.)
What is your evidence that there was an “original chimp” that God created?
I do realize that you are not a traditional Young Earth Creationist of the AIG and ICR type—but I will simply mention that they would probably say that God created an original “simian kind” of some sort rather than an “original chimp”. So perhaps you could explain why you believe that an “original chimp” existed. (Of course, because of the special conditions required for fossilization, I assume that you understand that such an “original chimp” would probably not be found in the fossil record, no matter how long one would search and hope to get lucky in finding it.)
Do you have to support YOUR rapid-fire statements? (If the answer is no, then that would explain why you haven’t complied with my request that you explain your posts.)
Mice are often chosen in the study of disease—but not because of being the closest in genetics. Are you sure you understand how such research is conducted? (As one of many examples, such mice are specially bred for particular characteristics, such as lack of an immune system or a certain type of dysfunction or vulnerability to disease.)
1 Like
I have always like this quote:
2 Likes
No, not your nested hierarchy, which probably does not exist anyway at the lowest levels you presume.
This model I propose would unquestionably give the appearance that a human-chimp hierarchy existed at the current level of shared inherited traits and likely at the next lower level shared with other primates. All of this would be due to pre-Flood human-chimp (or other primate) hybridization creating the appearance of a genetic split between human and primate species. Any primate on the Ark would have been a descendant of the hybridization event, extending backward in time as much as thousands, tens of thousands, or a hundred thousand years.
Great quote, @T_aquaticus. One certainly does wonder why a creator would go to such great lengths to embed in every creature such voluminous evidence of Common Ancestry if, in fact, each was created as its own special creation “kind”.
One also wonders why “broken genes” and ERVs fall into such impressed nested hierarchy patterns if each “kind” was created separately. What kind of creator would prefer to use special creation for each kind and yet “plant” so much deceptive evidence in the DNA history of living things?
2 Likes
What is your evidence (whether it be scientific evidence or scriptural evidence or both) which led you to think that there were human-chimp hybrids before the Noahic Flood? (What is your evidence that there has ever been such a thing as a human-chimp hybrid?)
Or are you simply pulling such ideas out of thin air?
Of course, even if such a hybridization had taken place, it would NOT explain the actual DNA evidence found in chimp and human genomes. It wouldn’t be a nested hierarchy pattern.
Humans were having offspring with spider monkeys and baboons? Really?
Also, your rather crazy idea still doesn’t explain the genetic evidence. If what you say is true, then we should find genes in these species that are nearly identical to human genes while others are very different. This isn’t what we see. Instead, genes correlate with the proposed evolutionary distance.
You also have the problem of the nested hierarchy extending back through all vertebrates and most branches on the eukaryote tree. Did humans have offspring with fish and turtles too?
1 Like
How are you sure?
Which does not exist anyway. Rather, it might give the appearance that the hierarchy existed.
We would love you to show that the nested hierarchy doesn’t exist. However, I suspect all we will see is flat denials.
LOL! Brilliant scientific analysis. The evidence doesn’t exist, just the appearance of the evidence exists. 
More food for thought . . .
2 Likes
I’ve personally examined the evidence. And I understand how Common Ancestry and Common Design create entirely different patterns.
1 Like
I have seen the pictures in textbooks too. The difference between you and me is, you drank the Kool Aid and I did not. Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if you see similarities between organisms on the macro scale you should also see similarities on the genetic scale?
From that standpoint, all it takes is an unstable mind to begin drawing diagrams and unfounded conclusions about common ancestry. Then it is about getting enough people on board with the wild idea, then enough professionals, then it’s just a matter of selling the idea to the public. If the lie goes on long enough, it is easy to sell it at some future point as ‘established fact’.
Of course it does. I could show you the literature if you liked.
Why would it? Sorry, but hybridization doesn’t produce a nested hierarchy. It produces quite a different pattern. And really, human-monkey hybrids? That’s just silly.
Because we know what hybrids look like, we can and have detected them in hybrid species and interspecific hybrids. A hybrid’s genome is a mosaic of the two parental species. If chimps were hybrids, some bits of the genome would be 100% human and other bits would be 100% monkey. Instead we see that almost all the bits are 98.7% human. No 100% anything else, no difference in parentage among parts.
1 Like
Clearly, @r_speir drank some kind of Cool-aid. (Registered trademark avoided.)
None of this applies to the idea at hand because there are variables and unknowns. You are speaking present-day. The hybrid event I propose was generations ago. We would not know the original genetic makeup of the original primate. We would not know the # of generations involved. We would not know the mutation rate. So many unknowns. One might be able to begin with the modern chimp and work backwards genetically trying to reconstruct a timeline.
Edit: nor would we know the very important facts about how often the event took place. Perhaps just once with one set of offspring, then the offspring mating only with their species after ward. Too many variables.
Common ancestry? That’s just silly.