Neanderthals

[Semper-Fi]

Nope.

Here is the key points he goes over.

1. Humans are fundamentally different from all other life forms in terms of functionality.
2. Humans are profoundly different from all other life forms in terms of our genome.
3. The direction of genetic change is down, not up. Humanity is devolving due to mutation.
4. The information that specifies ‘man’ cannot arise via random mutations and natural selection.
5. The “junk DNA” paradigm has collapsed and is no longer a valid rescue mechanism for Darwinism.
6. All human beings are amazingly similar genetically—pointing toward a recent Adam and Eve.
a.Demise of the evolutionary bottleneck theory.
b.Demise of the evolutionary Out-of-Africa theory.
7. The limited amount of diversity within the human genome is best explained in terms of:
a.Primarily, designed diversity (heterozygosity) within the biblical Adam and Eve.
b. Secondarily, degenerative mutations that have accumulated since the Fall.
8. The number of “linkage blocks” and the limited degree of recombination seen within human
chromosomes appears to be consistent with an original population of two individuals that gave rise to
all humanity in the last 10,000 years.
9. The origin of people groups is best understood in the context of Adam/Flood/Babel, only requiring
population fragmentation, rapid dispersal, founder effects, assortative mating, and limited selection.
10. There is clearly a singular female ancestor of all humans (“Mitochondrial Eve”), her basic DNA
sequence is easily discernable in humans alive today, and it is not more similar to chimpanzee.
11. There is clearly a singular male ancestor of all humans (“Y Chromosome Adam”), his DNA sequence
is largely known, and it is not at all similar to that of chimpanzee.
12. Molecular clocks and other dating methods most consistently point to a young genome.

 

[The Barbarian]

Humans are fundamentally different from all other life forms in terms of functionality.

Wrong. Our genes, for example function more like those of chimpanzees than any other animal, and theirs functions more like ours than any other animal. Our embyronic development, nervous system, and many other things are far more like those of chimpanzees than either species is like any other animal.

Humans are profoundly different from all other life forms in terms of our genome.

Wrong again. Genetically, we are closer to chimps than either of us are to other apes. Would you like me to show you the data?

The direction of genetic change is down, not up. Humanity is devolving due to mutation.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, We have evolved disease resistance, larger brains, more dexterous hands, and other traits than previous human species. Would you like me to show you that?

The information that specifies ‘man’ cannot arise via random mutations and natural selection.

Sounds pretty unlikely. Let's have a look at it. Don't forget; I'll be reminding you. Be sure to show your math. You do know how to calculate the information in a population genome, right? If you don't I'll show you a simple case to get you started.

The “junk DNA” paradigm has collapsed and is no longer a valid rescue mechanism for Darwinism.

Creationists mistakenly call it "Junk DNA", but geneticists call it "non-coding DNA." You see, some of it (like the broken vitamin C gene) is non-functional, but much of it has been adapted to other uses. In fact, in humans, useful new alleles are sometimes evolved by mutations to non-coding DNA. Would you like to learn about that?

All human beings are amazingly similar genetically—pointing toward a recent Adam and Eve.

Or at least the last common ancestor. "Mitochondrial Eve" lived about 100,000 years ago, but she isn't the real Eve in the Bible. She's just the last female that is the ancestor of all people living today. There is also a "Y chromosome Adam" who lived roughly the same time but is just the last male who is the ancestor of all humans living today. Not the Biblical Adam. And it's a foolish misunderstanding; cheetahs, for example, are much less diverse than we are, but there were cheetahs millions of years ago. Hint: look up "genetic bottleneck."

Demise of the evolutionary bottleneck theory.

But there it is.

Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history​

Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history - Berkeley News

More than half of world's historical groups have suffered population bottlenecks over the millennia, perhaps affecting the prevalence of recessive hereditary diseases

news.berkeley.edu

The limited amount of diversity within the human genome is best explained in terms of:
a.Primarily, designed diversity (heterozygosity) within the biblical Adam and Eve.

Nope. Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet most human genes have dozens of useful alleles. The rest evolved over time.

b. Secondarily, degenerative mutations that have accumulated since the Fall.

Nope. They are quite useful, most of them. If not, they'd be harming people.

The number of “linkage blocks” and the limited degree of recombination seen within human
chromosomes appears to be consistent with an original population of two individuals that gave rise to
all humanity in the last 10,000 years.

Nope. As you learned, the data shows "Mitochondrial Eve" to have lived long before that.

9. The origin of people groups is best understood in the context of Adam/Flood/Babel, only requiring
population fragmentation, rapid dispersal, founder effects, assortative mating, and limited selection.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, we have direct evidence showing that new languages have evolved from old ones, and genetic evidence, showing that (for example) Southeast Asian peoples had been isolated from African and European peoples for many tens of thousands of years.

There is clearly a singular female ancestor of all humans (“Mitochondrial Eve”), her basic DNA
sequence is easily discernable in humans alive today, and it is not more similar to chimpanzee.

She lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, so not even close to the split between Homo and Pan. But as you learned, the genes of chimpanzees are more like those of humans than either is to any other animal.

There is clearly a singular male ancestor of all humans (“Y Chromosome Adam”), his DNA sequence
is largely known, and it is not at all similar to that of chimpanzee.

That's wrong, too. The Y chromosome happens to be one of the most variable chromosomes and we do not have definitive sequencing for other chromosomes of "Y chromosome Adam."

Molecular clocks and other dating methods most consistently point to a young genome.

No. In fact research has shown this to be an error in assuming a constant clock:
PLoS One

2009 Dec 29;4(12):e8260.

Explaining the imperfection of the molecular clock of hominid mitochondria

 

[FaithT]

Wrong. Our genes, for example function more like those of chimpanzees than any other animal, and theirs functions more like ours than any other animal. Our embyronic development, nervous system, and many other things are far more like those of chimpanzees than either species is like any other animal.


Wrong again. Genetically, we are closer to chimps than either of us are to other apes. Would you like me to show you the data?


No, that's wrong, too. For example, We have evolved disease resistance, larger brains, more dexterous hands, and other traits than previous human species. Would you like me to show you that?


Sounds pretty unlikely. Let's have a look at it. Don't forget; I'll be reminding you. Be sure to show your math. You do know how to calculate the information in a population genome, right? If you don't I'll show you a simple case to get you started.


Creationists mistakenly call it "Junk DNA", but geneticists call it "non-coding DNA." You see, some of it (like the broken vitamin C gene) is non-functional, but much of it has been adapted to other uses. In fact, in humans, useful new alleles are sometimes evolved by mutations to non-coding DNA. Would you like to learn about that?


Or at least the last common ancestor. "Mitochondrial Eve" lived about 100,000 years ago, but she isn't the real Eve in the Bible. She's just the last female that is the ancestor of all people living today. There is also a "Y chromosome Adam" who lived roughly the same time but is just the last male who is the ancestor of all humans living today. Not the Biblical Adam. And it's a foolish misunderstanding; cheetahs, for example, are much less diverse than we are, but there were cheetahs millions of years ago. Hint: look up "genetic bottleneck."


But there it is.

Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history​

Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history - Berkeley News

More than half of world's historical groups have suffered population bottlenecks over the millennia, perhaps affecting the prevalence of recessive hereditary diseases

news.berkeley.edu

Nope. Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet most human genes have dozens of useful alleles. The rest evolved over time.


Nope. They are quite useful, most of them. If not, they'd be harming people.


Nope. As you learned, the data shows "Mitochondrial Eve" to have lived long before that.


No, that's wrong, too. For example, we have direct evidence showing that new languages have evolved from old ones, and genetic evidence, showing that (for example) Southeast Asian peoples had been isolated from African and European peoples for many tens of thousands of years.


She lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, so not even close to the split between Homo and Pan. But as you learned, the genes of chimpanzees are more like those of humans than either is to any other animal.


That's wrong, too. The Y chromosome happens to be one of the most variable chromosomes and we do not have definitive sequencing for other chromosomes of "Y chromosome Adam."


No. In fact research has shown this to be an error in assuming a constant clock:
PLoS One

2009 Dec 29;4(12):e8260.

Explaining the imperfection of the molecular clock of hominid mitochondria

I just ordered the book, The Genesis Account by Jonathan Sarfati. It’s from the creationist side but addresses a lot of what we’ve been talking about. I’ll see what it has to say.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just ordered the book, The Genesis Account by Jonathan Sarfati. It’s from the creationist side but addresses a lot of what we’ve been talking about. I’ll see what it has to say.

Should be interesting.

 

[FaithT]

I’m looking forward to reading it. But I’ll probably skip some of if. It’s nearly 800 pages long.

 

[The Barbarian]

Might be interesting to keep Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True with you during the read. Cross-checking might be fun.

 

[FaithT]

Might be interesting to keep Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True with you during the read. Cross-checking might be fun.

I want to learn more about the other side of the debate.

 

[The Barbarian]

I want to learn more about the other side of the debate.

Kurt Wise and Todd Wood are two YE creationists who are also scientists in biology and paleontology. And they write about the evidence and faith and how that works for them. Worth reading. Occasionally AIG manages to put up an article that is mostly evidence-based.

 

[sfs]

Maybe you can convince all the dictionaries to change their definitions then.

Don't look to dictionaries for an accurate understanding of complex technical issues. There is an extensive scientific and philosophical literature on species definitions.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Wrong. Our genes, for example function more like those of chimpanzees than any other animal, and theirs functions more like ours than any other animal. Our embyronic development, nervous system, and many other things are far more like those of chimpanzees than either species is like any other animal.

The problem is We are told we are made after the God kind.
Biological similarities between different kinds of life are better
explained by a Common Designer than by common descent.

"While humans have some distinct similarities to apes, in the
most important aspects we are utterly unique. Only humans can
do science, sequence their own genome, reason, engineer cities,
visit the moon, write books/programs/poetry/music, or show agape love.

We clearly have dominion over the earth. Only man is a conscious
moral being with a soul, capable of communion with God. In all
these respects we are incredibly unique. As evolutionist Juan
Arsuaga writes in The Neanderthal’s Necklace:

We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal
species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm
separates us from all other living creatures.

There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses
fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays.
This not a question of degrees. It is all or nothing; there is no
semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only
short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just
a little bit, or prays just occasionally.1

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a704d4_f5f5f851384f4767889ad115b1e52f65.pdf

-

The bible says Man is made in Gods image and likeness,
And reproduce after their kind, not after a chimpanzee.
The bible also says animals reproduce after their kind.

Want to see those bible verses?

Are we able to preach animals about the Good news of
Jesus sacrifice? Can a chimpanzee become a son of God?
Is God ever described as being like a Chimpanzee or like man.

So what if they have physical things similar. When we can
observe a human reproduce with a chimpanzee, then they
would be considered the same kind. Good luck with that.

The Human brain, combined with "the Spirit of man" has no
equal on this earth. There's no real difference in shape
and construction between animal brain and human brain.

Animals are equipped with brain and instinct. But they do
not have power to understand and, choose moral and spiritual
values or to develop holy and godly character.

"The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord,
which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation
of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."

Science calls it your conscience, they can't see, feel,
or touch it, human nature or something. Scientists will not
admit the possibility of the existence of the nonphysical.

Evolutionists cannot even begin to explain how mutation/
selection might have created consciousness, intelligence,
moral accountability, or a soul.
-

I will believe God and His word over science, ever learning
but never coming to the real truth. Man made after Gods image.
Marriage, blushing, clothing, music, suffering in childbirth,
We have dominion over the earth, and many, many other things.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Wrong again. Genetically, we are closer to chimps than either of us are to other apes. Would you like me to show you the data?

New Research Evaluating Similarities
Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA

"Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human
and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of
the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal
alignment conditions.

New Research Evaluating Similarities Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA

A preliminary study was performed by Tomkins comparing 40,000 chimpanzee genomic sequences against the human genome which indicated that reported levels of human-chimp DNA similarity were significantly lower than commonly reported. The present, follow-up study was then completed in which chimp...

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

"While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity,
the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary time-scales
and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

So much for the theory of Eveolution from Chimpanzees.

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem is We are told we are made after the God kind.

Our bodies are animal bodies. Our souls are God kind.

Biological similarities between different kinds of life are better
explained by a Common Designer than by common descent.

No, that's wrong. For example, birds have wings and bats have wings, but bats are more closely related to horses than to birds. You've confused analogous organs with homologies. Would you like to learn about that?

The bible says Man is made in Gods image and likeness,

Since God is a spirit and a spirit (according to God) has no body, it's obvious that the "image and likeness" is in our minds and souls.

And reproduce after there kind, not after a chimpanzee.

You do know that the Bible does not say that animals reproduce after their kind, right?

The bible also says animals reproduce after there kind.

No, it doesn't. That's your addition to scripture.

Genesis 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The Human brain, combined with "the Spirit of man" has no
equil on this earth. There's no real difference in shape
and construction between animal brain and human brain.

Thomas Huxley won a debate with Owens by showing that there was no structure in a chimpanzee brain that wasn't in a human brain and vice versa. You've been misled about that.

For example, chimps have Broca's area, and that area is active when they are communicating, just as ours is.

Animals are equipped with brain and instinct. But they do
not have power to understandand, choose moral and spiritual
values or to develop holy and godly character.

I guess that's the part that God breathes into each of us, to make us like Him.

Scientists will not
admit the possibility of the existence of the nonphysical.

You've been misled about that, too. Science can't do that, but scientists can. And many of us do.

Evolutionists cannot even begin to explain how mutation/
selection might have created consciousness, intelligence,
moral accountability

Darwin first explained this in The Descent of Man. We've had a lot more understanding since. Would you like to learn about that?

or a soul.

That's the nonmaterial. So not part of science. But as you just learned, something many scientists know about.

Marrage, blushing

I one knew a pair of great horned owls, who remained faithfully together for a lifetime, as such owls usually do. And Macaws blush. So you're wrong about that.

 

[FaithT]

Our bodies are animal bodies. Our souls are God kind.


No, that's wrong. For example, birds have wings and bats have wings, but bats are more closely related to horses than to birds. You've confused analogous organs with homologies. Would you like to learn about that?


Since God is a spirit and a spirit (according to God) has no body, it's obvious that the "image and likeness" is in our minds and souls.

You do know that the Bible does not say that animals reproduce after their kind, right?

No, it doesn't. That's your addition to scripture.

Genesis 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.


Thomas Huxley won a debate with Owens by showing that there was no structure in a chimpanzee brain that wasn't in a human brain and vice versa. You've been misled about that.

For example, chimps have Broca's area, and that area is active when they are communicating, just as ours is.


I guess that's the part that God breathes into each of us, to make us like Him.


You've been misled about that, too. Science can't do that, but scientists can. And many of us do.


Darwin first explained this in The Descent of Man. We've had a lot more understanding since. Would you like to learn about that?


That's the nonmaterial. So not part of science. But as you just learned, something many scientists know about.



I one knew a pair of great horned owls, who remained faithfully together for a lifetime, as such owls usually do. And Macaws blush. So you're wrong about that.

I think penguins mate for life, too, correct?

And my dogs understand quite a bit.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wrong again. Genetically, we are closer to chimps than either of us are to other apes. Would you like me to show you the data?

New Research Evaluating Similarities
Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA

Ah, a creationist website. And they got it all wrong. Let's see what genetic comparisons actually show...

Nature
Sept. 2005

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome​

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12,33,34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is ∼1.06% or less.

The guys on that website you trusted, pulled a little bait-and-switch on you. The Y chromosome is highly variable even in humans.

While great-ape X chromosomes are highly conserved, their Y chromosomes, reflecting the general lability and degeneration of this male-specific part of the genome since its early mammalian origin, have evolved rapidly both between and within species.

The Y chromosomes of the great apes - Human Genetics

The great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans) descended from a common ancestor around 13 million years ago, and since then their sex chromosomes have followed very different evolutionary paths. While great-ape X chromosomes are highly conserved, their Y chromosomes...

link.springer.com

And anatomically modern humans differ from Neanderthals (probably a subspecies of H. sapiens) by only a little less. (about 0.5%)

Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

Two of the most detailed Neanderthal DNA sequencing projects ever performed are shedding new light on the shared evolutionary past of ourselves and our closest extinct relative.

www.livescience.com

So much for the theory of Eveolution from Chimpanzees.

You should realize that no one with any sense says that humans evolved from chimpanzees. The evidence indicates that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor chimpanzee. And each species diverged a long way from that common ancestor.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think penguins mate for life, too, correct?

I believe so. Birds tend to do that, across a lot of species.

And my dogs understand quite a bit.

Yeah. The evidence indicates that we evolved together with them in all sorts of ways. For example both humans and dogs instinctively know what pointing means. Other apes and wolves have a hard time getting that, but dogs and humans seem to be born with it. Our behavior is the most canid-like among primates, and dogs are more primate-like than other canids. Why wouldn't we be? It's an old partnership, one that both species seem to have entered voluntarily.

Not hard to see why. Picture two proto-wolves thinking about it:
"Yeah, they're slow, and they can't track to save their lives. But did you see last week? They took down a mammoth. We need to get in on that."

 

[Semper-Fi]

Ah, a creationist website. And they got it all wrong. Let's see what genetic comparisons actually show...

Nature
Sept. 2005

​

Ah you give a study that is misleading, old and outdated.

In 2010 it was shown that the Y chromosomes of human/chimp were less than 70% identical, not 98%

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah you give a study that is misleading, old and outdated.

In 2010 it was shown that the Y chromosomes of human/chimp were less than 70% identical, not 98%

You still don't get it. The 98% similarity is in the entire genome. As you just learned, the Y chromosome is only a small part of the genome and it is highly variable even among humans. Modern humans are about 98% similar in genes to chimpanzees, and about 99.5% similar to Neanderthals, to give you some comparison.

From the study they used to mislead you:

Nature
Jan 2010
Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Since God is a spirit and a spirit (according to God) has no body, it's obvious that the "image and likeness" is in our minds and souls.

Yes God is A Spirit, but also has an Image we can see.
The bible talks about God having a face, eyes, hair,
arms, hands, legs, feet, in many places in the bible.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory
of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen
me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father? John 14:9 (KJV)

We know what He looks like now, in all His Glory.

Revelation 1:12-17 (KJV)
12And I turned to see the voice that spake with me.
And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto
the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot,
and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white
as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15and his
feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;
and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was
as the sun shineth in his strength. 17And when I saw him,
I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon
me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

John 17:5 (KJV)
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with
the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Of course above shows Him in all his Glory. Soon God willing
at appointed time, we will be changed into glory as he currently is.

Man can become a member of The God Family, can Animals?

1 Corinthians 15:49-52 (KJV)
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Psalm 17:15 (KJV)
As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness:
I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?
or shall a nation be born at once?"

Matthew 25:31 (KJV)
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

The Bible explains in detail why God made man.
It reveals our purpose for existence. It provides
instruction on ideal human conduct. It shows us our
ultimate potential, [never offered to any other kind],
was not even offered or given to the Angeles.

 

[Semper-Fi]

You do know that the Bible does not say that animals reproduce after their kind, right?

That's your addition to scripture.

Genesis 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

" God made the beast[H2416] of the earth[H776] after his kind

Genesis 1:25 - The Sixth Day

God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

biblehub.com

Genesis 1:25 (KJV)
"And God made the beast[H2416] of the earth[H776] after his
kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth
upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

beast H2416
חַי
chay
khah'ee
From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: - + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.
Total KJV occurrences: 502

earth H776
אֶרֶץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
Total KJV occurrences: 2505
-


Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground
all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

-

Why would 2 of every kind be required.

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind,
of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of
every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Thomas Huxley won a debate with Owens by showing that there was [no structure in a chimpanzee brain] that wasn't in a human brain and vice versa. You've been misled about that.

Misled? Is that not what I said.

Semper-Fi said:
"The Human brain, combined with "the Spirit of man" has no
equal on this earth. [There's no real difference in shape
and construction] between animal brain and human brain."

So how can science debate something they cannot see [the spirit
in man] with their 5 senses and conclude our brains are the same.
You do know this spirit is a nonphysical component?

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth
no man, but the Spirit of God.

Job 32:8 (KJV)
But there is a spirit in man: And the inspiration
of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

The spirit of man [not souls], makes use different than any animal. Then also
without Gods Holy Spirit combined we cannot even know the things of God.

For example, chimps have Broca's area, and that area is active when they are communicating, just as ours is.

When chimpanzees can build a ship and fly to the moon, or millions of other things
that man can do compared to chimpanzees, then there would be a similar output.