View source for Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.


This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research.  But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right".  I think, physically, we have always been alright.  --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)