Are we really 99% primate?

Share this page!

Are we really 99% primate? On this page I am going to break down the anatomy of both the Chimp and Humans to show that the difference is much more than 99%. And I will show how the numbers were fudged, and we were basically lied to. What you will see here will shock you because it’s absolute evidence that can be looked up. What you will find if you choose to do it, is what I did. Which is that none of this information is found together as I am going to do here. Because if it were put “all” on one page, you would see that this all was a lie from the start. And that great efforts have been made to keep this from being revealed.

First up is a video from YouTube made by atheists trying to explain why the numbers were fudged in the first place. My question would be: If evolution were on the up and up, why did any numbers need to be fudged? Why was it hidden? And why can’t they admit they lie.

Video

Second I’m going to show the differences in the skeletal system between Chimps and Humans.


Visually make a note of each difference and as you do keep in mind that each difference requires a difference DNA code. Notice the differences in the hips, the lengths of the thigh bones, the difference in the tail bones, where the knees are located, and the differences in the feet.

To accommodate the different bone structures the muscles, tendons, joints, skin, arteries, and veins have to have their own code. Again this requires different DNA code.

Muscles for the hip area, the thigh, the knees, the calves, and even the feet all have to be different to accommodate. Different DNA code is required.

Then we have the Coccyx bone, or as evolutionists like to refer to it. The left over tail from primates. It is said to have “zero” function. Really? Let’s take a look.

In the picture below is all the muscles that use the Coccyx as anchor points. One such muscle allows you to poop. So if you think it does nothing, have it removed and you be wearing Depends diapers for the rest of your life.

Then we have the Rib Cage area. Different sizes, different number of ribs, and different Rib Cage designs all require different DNA coding.

And different muscles, tendons, joints etc… to accommodate all of this is different DNA code again.

Then we have the difference skull bone structures. Jaw Bone, Nasal, area where the brain sits. eye sockets, brow ridge, teeth etc…

 

Then we have the muscles, tendons, and different size brains. All to accommodate the differences. And all of this again takes different DNA coding.

Then we have the hands and their differences. Different bone strutures, different joint structures.


This requires different muscles, tendons, skin formations etc… All of which again requires different DNA coding.

Then we have the organs and systems. To accommodate the different skeletal structures the organs and systems have to be different sizes, use different paths etc…

As you can see the differences are way more than a mere 1%. The video at the top is more correct in showing that when all the number fudging is removed, it more like 70% difference which make the 1% a huge lie.

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments