You made two specific claims about DNA that I am showing are in error.
You claimed that DNA similarity could be explained by physical and lifestyle similarity. I showed you the data that chimps and humans are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla, although clearly the gorilla and chimp are more similar in lifestyle and physical form. Clearly your ‘similar DNA is explained by similar physical form and lifestyle’ construction breaks down once you actually look at the DNA data.
You also claimed that the DNA similarity observed between humans and chimps that is greater than either’s similarity to gorilla DNA was a “logical impossibility”. Now that I have shown you (and you have sourced yourself) numerous data that show this to be the case you claim I am ‘quaintly attached to DNA’.
I guess when you cannot deal with the error of your specific claims regarding DNA the only tact is to claim I am the one somehow obsessed with DNA.
Clearly God laughs at your “logical impossibility”. Do you often claim superior knowledge of God's will than what the data clearly shows? It is indeed part of God's plan to have human and chimp DNA more similar than chimp and gorilla DNA.
Actually, a common designer explains DNA similarities. I was merely stating that organisms have been designed to have similar body plans and similar functional needs will quite naturally be similar in terms of their
genetic/epigenetic blueprint.
==You also claimed that the DNA similarity observed between humans and chimps that is greater than either’s similarity to gorilla DNA was a “logical impossibility”.
You are quite right. See above.
==Now that I have shown you (and you have sourced yourself) numerous data that show this to be the case you claim I am ‘quaintly attached to DNA’.
The most recent research demonstrates that even your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics are being forced to insert question marks into their human-chimp catechism. You can't even get your own position right, let alone my position. But you are correct about one thing...you are indeed ‘quaintly attached to DNA.’