Question for creationists: Why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps?

[Ophiolite]

Why? whatever path evolution takes there will always be a 'most closely related' species or genus; what is there to be proud of? [genuinely curious]

What can I tell you? I like chimpanzees. Their nascent cultures, their tool making, their interesting social interactions. Their physical prowess would be intimidating in an enemy, so I prefer to think of them as family. I'd certainly opt for them as close relatives, given the choice, over quite a few humans.

And then take into account my tree-hugging disposition and an affection for Jame Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. When I look at other organisms I ponder on when we last had a common ancestor. While common ancestor has all the biological meaning it likely has for you in evolutionary terms, I also view it on para-social level. So I look at my cat and think, sometime, several tens of millions of years ago our many times great grandparents were part of the same family, but then took separate paths. My cat, being the more practical one, simply looks at me until I get up to feed her.

Oh, and mentiniong I'm proud of being related to chimpanzees may annoy some Creationists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What can I tell you? I like chimpanzees. Their nascent cultures, their tool making, their interesting social interactions. Their physical prowess would be intimidating in an enemy, so I prefer to think of them as family. I'd certainly opt for them as close relatives, given the choice, over quite a few humans.

Thanks for explaining; I guess my view of Pan trog. is clouded by their capacity for extreme and savage violence (perhaps even on a level with humans). I'm not so familiar with Pan pan., but they seem a nicer sort of chap

And then take into account my tree-hugging disposition and an affection for Jame Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. When I look at other organisms I ponder on when we last had a common ancestor. While common ancestor has all the biological meaning it likely has for you in evolutionary terms, I also view it on para-social level. So I look at my cat and think, sometime, several tens of millions of years ago our many times great grandparents were part of the same family, but then took separate paths. My cat, being the more practical one, simply looks at me until I get up to feed her.

My cat does that too - we have staring matches; she usually wins.

Oh, and mentiniong I'm proud of being related to chimpanzees may annoy some Creationists.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh, and mentiniong I'm proud of being related to chimpanzees may annoy some Creationists.

Better to be related to a dog than to a god.

 

[inquiring mind]

The idea being that if God really wanted to set us apart, they could have made us a wholly unique organism. But they didn't. Instead we have more in common with other living things (especially other primates) than we do differences.

I did receive some compelling answers as to why God might have done that, including the idea that we are meant to be part of a functioning biosphere.

Mark Twain said God created man because he was disappointed in the monkey.

 

[driewerf]

So I look at my cat and think, sometime, several tens of millions of years ago our many times great grandparents were part of the same family, but then took separate paths. My cat, being the more practical one, simply looks at me until I get up to feed her.

Oh, and mentiniong I'm proud of being related to chimpanzees may annoy some Creationists.

You get up to feed her. She never gets up to feed you. So who took the right evolutionary path?