> Marie,
> Some of the differences are still beyond explanation, but most
> aren't. The fat, nose, hands, folicle direction and a few others are
> evolutionary swimmimg adaptations. No other ape can swim, these are
> water adaptations. Another way is called RNA regression analysis. By
> testing RNA, which is passed down female lines, we can tell species
> divergence times, and thus discover where mankind diverged from the
> apes. Using these techniques and others, there is no scientific doubt
> that man is an ape. There is not even ANY contridicting evidence found
> so far.
>
> Also, send your books list to me if you get a chance, I need to catch
> up quite a bit too.
>
Well, we actually do agree. What I was trying to get at is the picture
we have of our social interaction (hostile, aggressive etc.) comes from
the idea that seems to be prevalent based on the fossil record of
proto-man stalking game on the plains of Africa. My point is that we
seek knowledge often that matches up to our views of our history. That
is why someone studied the DNA match (which BTW is 98.6%). It also fits
into our idea of ourselves as superior to animals. If we did a study
and found out that we shared 98.2% of a mouse's DNA 97.8% of a cricket's
etc... we might have a clearer picture of how we fit into our world.
I am on the science side of the argument. I just wish that specific
studies would not get generalized as much as they do.
Specifically,
Marie