Hi Bex

True, some are carriers.
Some are carriers, some are sufferers some are immune to a greater or lesser extent.

But if what you say is true and we share more diseases with the great apes than any other animal and there really is very little differences in their handling of these diseases (compatiblity goes both ways), then there should be no issue with using their organs and no unpleasant surprises.
Why? Obviously humans are more closely related to humans than other animals yet we see wide variations in the susceptibility to diseases even among humans. In humans the best tissue donors are close relatives despite the closeness of our relationships with all humans. Now if we follow this to Apes we should expect to find that cross susceptibility is reduced for host specific disease but for those diseases that can cross from ape to human (or vice verca) we should expect to find they are particularly damaging as humans have very little exposure and so very little chance to develop resistance to ape diseases. As for compatibility we should expect, and indeed do find, that apes fall outside the normal range for human compatibility. Any human will be a better tissue donor than the most compatible ape and indeed this is why the ape xenotransplantion experiments have not continued.

Now as we move further from humans to pigs for example the disease risk drops further but so does the compatibility just as you would expect if ToE were true. In apes some live transplants have been done though with limited success, in pigs there has never been a successful live organ transplant exactly as ToE predicts. Of course with genetic engineering it is hoped that we can create pigs without the cell surface proteins that trigger an immune response so they will be compatible. If this can be done they are ideal candidates due to the low disease risk but, more importantly, availability. They are cheap to raise, grow fast and they are the right size for human transplantation.

But we know this isn't so. This continues to be THE issue here. Should they find a way of surmounting this, it still does not prove anything either way. Even if a particular animal might share more characteristics with humans than others, may not be enough to bridge such a gap that even medical intervention struggles to achieve. Apes/monkeys do not even have a capacity for speech, yet parrots do. There are other animals out there that may share certain traits closer to humans even than primates. Again, does not mean we share a common ancestor.
Sure you can pick and chose through all sorts of odd details and build a very confused picture of who may be related to whom or you can do the sort of detailed work that scientists have done and work out what the true picture is by considering all of the available information. Did you know for example that guinea pigs can’t produce Vitamin C either? Now if you take the naive view this sounds like a good counter to my claims for ape/human relatedness based in this shared defect but you have to look at the details. The change in DNA in guinea pigs is a totally different one to that which apes and humans share suggesting that they are not closely related to us exactly as all the other evidence suggests.

Apes can’t talk though some have been taught sign language and they show much greater linguistic abilities than birds if you look purely at what they say rather than how they say it. Alex was an amazing bird, he showed reasoning abilities beyond anything humans believed birds capable off before he came along but he could not rival the abilities of apes who show far more human like abilities than any other creature exactly as you would expect if ToE were true.

And that’s what it comes down to time and again. You have to look at the whole story, don’t just pick and chose. If you take a nieve view you could come to the conclusion that guinea pigs are close relatives because we share an inability to produce vitamin C but the details tell a totally different story. You have to examine the details not just skim over the top and cherry pick the bits that suit your preconceptions.

Many people (even some on this forum) use pig thyroid extracts, but I know of nobody using or even considering the idea of ape/monkey thyroid extracts.....so it still gets confusing Russell.
Sure but again you have to consider the details. Why don’t people use ape thyroid extract? Do you know? It’s a crucial question to understand considering the point you are trying to make. The answer is very simple, there are no compatibility issues with Thyroid extract, it’s a chemical not a living tissue and it carries no proteins that could trigger an immune reaction. Thyroid extract is inert to the immune system. In short there’s no reason to choose pigs over apes from a compatibility perspective but there is a very good reason to choose pigs as a source for this chemical because they are cheap and easy to raise in large numbers unlike apes.

The closest relationship with apes/monkeys out of all the animals?.... Yet still can't quite bridge the gap regardless.
Exactly, and your point is. We have come closer with less work to achieving this with apes than with any other species exactly as you would expect if ToE were true. Have you notice that, time and again, when you look at the full details of this it points to ToE being true? Detail after detail paints the same picture when you look at all of them and don’t just cherry pick the bits that seem to support your preconceptions.

I see this as reflecting the mind of the creator, rather than a series of chances/process all responsible for such forethought that is necessary for all these things to come together.
I’m sure you do but look at the bigger picture. By far the greatest number of similarities exist between apes and humans. This is true at every level from enzymes, proteins, physical characteristics, mental characteristics etc etc. As we move further from our ‘closest relatives’ the number of similarities drops. But that is a gross picture and not terribly informative you have to look at the fine detail if you want to work out what’s going on. Don’t just notice that guinea pigs, humans and apes can’t produce Vitamin C rather look at why not. The former approach gives a very messy view of the relations between organisms and has proven to be worthless. The latter approach gives one single picture that is very well defined and well supported by evidence from a whole range of scientific disciplines which is exactly what you would expect if ToE were true and not at all what you would expect if creation were true.

Evolutionists seem to ignore the common traits of other animals associated with human beings and prefer instead to focus on primates. It is true that we are most similar to primates in appearance and would expect this to be reflected genetically also
Actually that’s not true. There are many creatures that look very similar and occupy similar niches but which are not genetically similar. Convergent evolution produces many such. Porcupines and echidnas are similar in lifestyle and in body design yet genetically they have very little in common. LOL we even have a spiny ant eating lizard in Australia. So similarity of appearance does not suggest similarity of DNA. Now if you look at the fine details of the body you will find that apes share more than just a superficial resemblance to us and they in fact share most of our DNA including, very tellingly, some of our genetic defects and this last is a most telling point. Again it’s all in the details.

Can anybody point out a primate who goes about hunting for meat? Making spears and other tools to do so?
Meat eating is actually common among higher primates. Here’s one article that discusses it.

Spear-Wielding Chimps Seen Hunting Bush Babies by Ann Gibbons
Science 23 February 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5815, p. 1063 DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5815.1063

While the spear wielding part is unusual the hunting is not, it’s actually quite common behaviour, many of the larger apes are omnivores ranging from opportunistic to active hunters.

As far as I know, they stick to the same diet they're accustomed to and don't seem to deviate from it.
They will learn from each other, social knowledge transfer is another trait we share strongly with apes, so if one member of the group works out how to exploit a new food source or how to better exploit an old one it will teach the other members of its band the trick.

Some people do go vegetarian, but that is a choice also. The meat eating is something we have more common with the carniverous animals, than primates.
Actually we don’t really share this with carnivores, we have always been, naturally, omnivores with a leaning towards the vegetarian end of the scale. While we do eat meat just like the apes our natural diet is richer in plant derived foods just like the apes. Carnivors range from omnivores with a bias for meats such as dogs to obligate carnivores who must eat meat to thrive such as cats.

Even a small percentage of difference in DNA can make for a significant difference. Considering that the information contained with DNA itself has been compared with the information contained within MANY encylopedias. This apparent "small" difference then becomes significant and if that were not so, then we would indeed have much more in common with primates than we'd care to admit and bananas wouldn't be far off either.
Actually we are genetically far more similar to Primates than bananas, pigs are in the middle though much closer to apes than bananas. In fact if you compare DNA from species to specie you can build a tree of relatedness which looks virtually identical to the one you come up with by studying the find details of the anatomy of organisms.

Yet the similarity allows us to consume them and gain nourishment, since they are designed for us and are biochemically compatible.
Genetic similarity is not required for something to be nourishing to us, in fact many of the things that are very nourishing are a long way removed from us genetically while some highly similar things are not nutritious to us at all. Genetic similarity is not a measure of how nourishing an organism will be for us.

One must also ask about our apparent "common ancestor" and whether they had the capacity for speech and why did this capacity turn up in us and not the primates? Yet still we are claimed to be from the same ancestor.
I don’t think we know for sure but given their much smaller brain size than great apes or humans I doubt they could talk and their vocal apparatus is far less sophisticated. This lack of sophistication also explains why great apes can’t be taught to talk. They can of course be taught to communicate through computers or with sign language and once so trained they far outstrip the communication abilities of birds who may be able to make convincing speech sounds but with little understanding despite Alex’s amazing feats. In fact great apes who have learned sign language will use it to communicate with other apes and will teach it to their children unlike birds who only perform for their trainers and never seem to get the idea of using their abilities in any other setting.

Yet somehow parrots have the capacity for speech and even ability to put words into sentences and make meaning out of them. Masters of imitation of both us and nature. But even so the structure that allows them to produce such sounds still differs from humans; yet the fact they have the intelligence and ability is "ignored" by evolutionists in preference to keep waving the "ape to man" flag. Why?
Because, as I have explained, while birds are great mimics and have the vocal apparatus to produce quite convincing speech they string only a few sounds together into very primitive sentences without true syntax while apes taught sign language or to communicate through a computer are also capable of creating syntactic sentences, of teaching other apes language and of demonstrating quite complex abstract thought unlike birds who have never shown this ability.

Yet again I have to say that you can’t just cherry pick, if you want to understand these relationships you really have to look at the whole picture. Cherry picking shows you that birds ‘talk’ better than apes so maybe they are more closely related but a true look at all the evidence shows that apes are by far the better communicators even if their vocal cords are not up to producing speech. This is exactly in line with ToE yet again but only if you look at the whole story.

Evolutionists don't consider common design within nature, because this points to a common designer. They are looking to compartmentise everything into the evolutionary box and pin on particular labels. But if one looks at the big picture, there are problems.
Well there is one slight problem with including the idea of common design if you do so you then have to explain a god while evolutionists have to explain what, natural selection (we’ve observed that in action) random mutation (we’ve observed that happening) and what else? God is a very big presupposition. And, contrary to your statement if you look at the big picture and avoid cherry picking you get a very detailed picture that is fully consistent with ToE. I don’t believe it is reasonable to ignore lots and lots of evidence to support your view, cherry picking a very bad way to find the truth.

If indeed there really is a "common ancestor" then from where did they come and how? And where is the proof of their evolutionary arrival on the stage?
Are you asking about the original common ancestor to all life or the common ancestor to humans/great apes?

Darwin himself suggested that the original form or forms may have been crated by god and evolution continued on from there. DNA evidence suggest that there was at least a bottle neck during which all but one line died out so while life may have started with several origins all but one died out at some time since. We have only indirect evidence for this as single celled organisms don’t leave detailed fossil.

No matter how much evolution one throws on everything, animals have remained animals and there is a clear difference between all animals/creatures and human beings.
Actually we have some really good fossil and DNA evidence that shows that animals arose from a common ancestor with fungus and plants and that that ancestor along with the rest of the Eukaryotes branched off from the Achaea and further back from Bacteria and before that it leads all the way back to the original common ancestor which may as I have said been a group of organisms with all but one line dying out at some point before Bacteria and Achaea split. That line being the original common ancestor.

We are fully aware of them and pretending one believes we are equal is lying. If in fact we are all equal, then how is it we have rights to retain/contain them, cage them, shoot them, eat them, ride them, use them, choose them as pets, use them in different areas of work depending on their suitability, do experiments on them, etc.....
There’s no doubt that we are more intelligent than at least most of the other animals but it is a difference in quantity not quality. Other animals have consciousness, self awareness, emotions, a sense of morality, analytical minds, abstract thoughts pretty well everything we call human exists in other animals to some extent we just have more of these things all in one animal. We give ourselves the right to ride them, to kill them, to cage them and to experiment on them because we think it’s the right thing to do. I’m sure most of them would disagree. Why do we get the privilege to decide who among them is suitable to be ridden, caged, experimented on or killed?

There is no doubt that even if you believe in evolution, man is the only creature that stands out and above every other creature.
We are not the fastest runners, we are not the strongest, we are not the best flyers, we don’t have the best eyesight, we don’t have sonar, we can’t survive (without assistance) extreme cold or heat, we can’t survive under water yet animals can do all of these things and so much more. We are probably the smartest of all animals on earth but it is only a human centric view that sees that as the defining characteristic by which all creatures should be judged. A lion would claim to be superior if it were capable of thinking such thoughts because it is stronger and roars louder. A cheater would consider that we run too slowly, and eagle would say we can’t fly well enough etc etc. Humans consider themselves to be the best because we are good at being human. There is no objective reason to this.

It seems to me that evolution had a particlar 'creature' in mind to esteem above all others, because it certainly didn't go any further withthe rest as far as human qualities/gifts are concerned. Unless you can think of an animal that designs aeroplanes, conducts an orchestras, writes and presents a theisis, teaches a class of others, gives speeches, debates oneanother, considers the future, makes specific plans, uses his/her imagination, etc etc.
See what I mean? Do you even realize you are doing it? You are picking things that humans are good at and painting them as the most important things and so judging other creatures by those artificial standards.

Your comments regarding the Pope, still have no reflection on the evolution theory being a fact.
Sure but I never suggested that it did. If the Pope rejected it completely it would still be the best explanation we have for the observed facts of evolution the Pope would just be more wrong for doing so. I pointed it out, as I made clear at the time, to show that it was possible to be a christian and to accept evolution. That was to counter the idea expressed here that evolution equals atheism. The pope apparently disagrees and he’s pretty well versed in what it means to be a christian I would suggest.

You could take a statement out of the bible and try and interpret it as meaning evolution I suppose, if you are really determined. I've seen some heroic attempts and at times amazing efforts to turn something into what it clearly hasn't said. I'd be interested however in what areas of the bible (quote and verse) that you interpret as referring to evolution?
Genesis describes the order of appearance of life on earth and gets it totally wrong. Genesis details the order of creation of the earth, sun, moon and stars and again gets it totally wrong. There are more passages that touch on evolution though that was not their intent but these too get it wrong but we don’t really need to go beyond Genesis as the errors there are so profound and so clear.

All the best Bex

Russell