[log in to unmask] wrote:
>  Marilyn > Yes Wildtrout, we are 3% higher than the chimp as in the
> difference between our respective DNAs.
>
> And we're 3.5% from wildebeests.  And 5.3% from amoeba.  I have never
> found the claim that "humans are x% different in their DNA from [insert
> here the animal you're trying to show we're closely related to]" very
> compelling.  And, even if it *were* shown that percentage of DNA from
> the next animal is important, that's the body anyway.  What makes
> people people are their souls.  We have 'em and animals don't. 
> Interesting subject I'd be glad to continue off list, if you're
> interested.
>
> Apologies, Don, for the off topic.
>
> Jim
>
> .
>
>   
Actually, the vast majority of religions believe that animals have 
souls; a few believe that inanimate objects have souls; and several 
don't believe in souls at all. I find it interesting and a little 
strange that you are using a statistical argument to counter Marilyn's 
statement and then stating something that only a small minority of 
Christians believe as fact (In fact most Christians, if you asked them, 
do believe that animals have souls. It is only a small minority who 
believe that they don't based on a particular interpretation of Genesis.)

I agree that this is off topic, but I wasn't going to let it go 
unchallenged.