Ogner

You’re conflating two different issues. I never claimed consciousness is ‘coded in DNA’ like a software script. My point was about the insufficiency of nucleotide-level comparisons (syntax) to explain biological complexity (pragmatics). Yes, consciousness emerges from the nervous system — but that system’s structure, plasticity, and function are themselves products of: Gene regulation (e.g., FOXP2 shaping neural circuits for language), Epigenetic cascades (prenatal environment affecting brain development), Noncoding DNA (90% of human-chimp differences lie here, altering neurogenesis timing). DNA isn’t the ‘code for consciousness’ — it’s the context-dependent scaffold that makes it possible. Ignoring this is like attributing Windows’ functionality solely to its CPU, ignoring its OS architecture." Your fingers analogy actually proves my point. No, DNA doesn’t ‘code for five fingers’ — but it encodes: Hox genes (positioning limb buds), Sonic hedgehog (gradients for digit patterning), Noncoding elements (why we don’t have wings). Similarly, while DNA doesn’t ‘store’ consciousness, it builds the brain’s unique wiring (e.g., human-specific ARHGAP11B increasing cortical neurons). Dismissing this as ‘looking in the wrong place’ is like saying ‘The blueprint isn’t the house!’ — true, but the house can’t exist without it.

Biblical Foundation Dear ayin jade, thank you for your thoughts, but let me clarify my stance with Scripture. In Revelation 6:10, the saints cry out to God: "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Likewise, the Apostle Paul in Romans 12:19 says: "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord." My prayer isn’t a curse born of spite—it’s a plea for God to execute His judgment, which is entirely in line with Christianity. As for forgiveness, the Bible doesn’t demand we forgive those who don’t repent or ask for it—Jesus forgave the repentant (Luke 17:3-4) but condemned unrepentant hypocrites (Matthew 23). I leave judgment to God, not to myself. The Dictatorship of Suffocating Love Secondly, I’ve noticed that modern Christian circles have established a sort of dictatorship of "suffocating love." Natural human emotions—self-respect, a thirst for justice, anger against evil, the drive to defend one’s interests or dignity—are practically treated as forbidden, almost like breaking some unspoken code. If you don’t constantly smile and radiate endless kindness, you’re accused of "bitterness" or "lacking love." It feels like if these people had the power, they’d burn alive anyone who dared to express anything short of blind love. Thank God they can’t, but the pressure is still there. Human nature is being suppressed for the sake of an artificial utopia where real emotions have no place. Masculinity as "Toxicity" Lastly, in the West, even basic masculinity is now branded as "toxic." "Masculinity isn’t a threat—it’s the foundation of order; a man must be strong to protect his family and society." Dircumstances demand that men be protectors—soldiers, police officers, heads of households. Yet this "dictatorship of suffocating love" deems any display of strength or displeasure a sin, even a prayer for justice to God—which is absurd to the highest degree. As a result, Western society has descended into schizophrenia: men are expected to defend against evil, yet told there’s no such thing as evil, that we must love and forgive everyone preemptively, even without their repentance. Lack of love has practically become a crime. The choice is stark: either a weak, effeminate pushover or "toxic masculinity" that’s condemned and punished. This is a utopia that’s destroying what it means to be human.

"You claim that Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the 'language' of DNA, but that’s a drastic oversimplification. In 1953, they deciphered DNA’s structure—the double helix—where nucleotides (A, T, G, C) bind through complementary base pairing (A-T, G-C). This explained replication: strands separate, each serving as a template for synthesis. In the 1960s, scientists cracked how three nucleotides (a codon) specify one amino acid — like figuring out which key combinations on a typewriter produce which letters. But this is just the alphabet—the 'spelling rules' of DNA. But ‘reading’ life’s entire book — understanding why humans have consciousness while chimps don’t — remains beyond our grasp.". The true ‘language’ of DNA, however, involves far more: Syntax – How noncoding 98.5% (enhancers, silencers, introns) regulate genes, turning them on/off in specific tissues. Semantics – Why nearly identical genes function differently in humans vs. chimps despite ~??% sequence overlap. Pragmatics – How DNA interacts with epigenetic marks (methylation, histones) and environmental signals. Matching syntax (A,T,G,C) while ignoring pragmatics (epigenetics, regulatory networks) is like comparing two computers by their hardware specs alone — while overlooking the difference in firmware and software. They may share the same chips, but one runs Windows and the other Linux OS. The ENCODE Project (2012) revealed 80% of the genome is biochemically active, yet its purpose often remains unknown. For example, noncoding DNA mutations link to cancer and autism—but we don’t grasp how they disrupt the genome’s ‘grammar.’ Non-coding DNA regulates genes through promoters (where transcription starts) and enhancers (which boost gene expression), but scientists don’t understand how: why is a gene active in the brain but not the liver? Watson and Crick uncovered the alphabet, not the language. Today, we read DNA like an ancient manuscript: we recognize scattered words but miss the style, plot, and author’s intent."

I looked at your links—found nothing new. You didn’t answer any of my questions. Evolutionists claim humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, like Australopithecus or Homo habilis, over millions of years of change. They portray these ancestors as less adapted to the wild and dumber than modern humans: they were weaker, slower, less intelligent, and that’s why they went extinct while humans survived. But I believe this is wrong. These supposed ancestors weren’t "underdeveloped apes"—they were the "golden mean" between apes and humans. And if so, they should have survived and still exist today. What does "golden mean" mean? These were beings that combined the best of apes and humans. They had strong bodies like apes to survive in the wild: they could climb trees, run fast, hide from predators. But they also had the beginnings of human intelligence: they could think, make simple tools, communicate with each other. If they were like this, why did they go extinct? Evolutionists say humans were "better" and outcompeted them. But that doesn’t make sense. The "golden mean" is the perfect balance: they were better adapted to the wild than humans, who now depend on technology, houses, and medicine. They weren’t "dumber"—their minds were developed enough to survive and adapt. If these ancestors were the "golden mean," they should not only have survived but also given rise to new species. In nature, well-adapted species don’t disappear—they continue to exist and evolve. Why did the "golden mean" disappear? Evolutionists can’t explain this. If evolution were true, we should not only find their skeletons but also live with them now. Where are these living transitional forms? Where are the creatures that still walk like Australopithecus or think like Homo habilis? They don’t exist. This shows there was no evolution. I believe the Creator made humans separately, not through evolution. The similarity between species is his "template," like an author writing different books in the same style. If evolution were true, we’d see millions of skeletons of these "golden means" and live with them today. But we don’t, because humans are a separate creation of the Creator.

When you sent the parable of the wicked tenants, I thought you brought it up to prove that Jesus was killed out of hatred. But then you wrote: "As in the parable, the Jewish leaders demanded crucifixion because of wanting His inheritance." I was surprised. There’s no hint of "envy" in the parable of the tenants. Yet people stubbornly see "envy." And at Pilate’s trial—what envy are we talking about? The disciples scattered back after the "bread from heaven" words (John 6), Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, the crowd shouted "crucify." Where’s the envy here? To what? But people still find it anyway. All around, it’s just "envy," money, and trade-market relationships. But the Bible is about something else. In a setting where the paradigm of trade-market relationships reigns, you can bring any arguments, and people will still only see trade-market relationships. And this topic is proof of that. Even in such conditions, where there’s a word with double meaning. Where Jesus Himself says: "They hated Me without a cause" (John 15:25), and the crowd wants to stone Him for "You, being a man, make Yourself God" (John 10:33). And what to do when it’s not all so obvious? We read the Synodal translation of the episode with the woman who washed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:47). Simon, openly breaking basic hospitality rules, not kissing Jesus or washing His feet, tries to drive her out, saying a sinful woman shouldn’t even be near the Rabbi. Jesus stops him: “Therefore, I tell you (Simon): Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much...” This is the (approved) translation by the church hierarchy. But in the Greek original, it’s the complete opposite! "οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι, ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ· ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ." “Therefore, I tell you (Simon): her sins are already forgiven, and we can know this, at least, because she loved.” The new state of her soul shows in this: against the existing hierarchy, she called the Truth Lord—and washed His feet. That’s in life. But in the translation—instead of direct relationships with God—it’s a market order: first righteousness (maybe with money), then rebirth, and—hooray!—salvation. First you give to God, then—for that—God gives to you. In the Kingdom of Heaven, everything is free. This is the opposite of the trading principle. No more sacrifices, no more bringing money to the temple, no need for high priests. No more hierarchy. Forgiveness is free for all and a gift, without sacrificing goats or bulls, without money-changers in the temple. Forgiveness for all by grace. That’s why the high priests killed Jesus, like in that chess players’ story I told earlier. No envy.

You say the similarity of bones in whales and humans can’t be explained by the Creator’s intelligent design because evolution explains it—mammals had a common ancestor, and their bones changed for different needs. But I can say the same: this similarity can’t be explained by evolution because it points to the Creator’s intelligent design. He made us with a similar "template," like a programmer writing different programs. The very fact that genes have been sequenced already suggests intelligent design—it’s like a meticulously structured code someone wrote with a specific order. If scientists don’t know the "language" of DNA, how can they prove it’s evolution and not the Creator’s program?

There’s no consensus among scientists. The data on the difference in human-chimp DNA varies from 2% to 33%. And that’s only based on sequenced genes, meaning just counting and comparing "letters," without knowing the "language" of DNA, without understanding the "words," without understanding the whole "plot." We know the "syntax" (nucleotide sequence), but not the "semantics" (regulation) or the "plot" (functions). So, we can’t even properly count and compare the order of "letters." If scientists can’t even count right—with numbers jumping from 2% to 33%—what can we even talk about? How can they claim this proves evolution? It’s all empty talk because they don’t understand the "language" of DNA.

@just_abc Human sacrifices were a dark chapter in the history of many cultures, from India to Africa and the Americas. These rituals, often tied to religion or power, faded under the influence of Western Christian colonizers, leaving their mark in the past. In India, sacrifices occurred before Europeans arrived. Devotees of Kali, including the Thuggee sect, killed thousands of travelers in her name. Ancient texts hint at prehistoric rituals, and the practice of sati—widows burning themselves—carried a religious tone. The British banned sati in 1829 and eradicated the Thugs by the 1860s, condemning these customs as barbaric. In North America, the Aztecs sacrificed tens of thousands, cutting out hearts for gods like Huitzilopochtli. The Pawnee killed girls in the "Morning Star" ritual, while the Iroquois executed captives in "mourning wars." The Spanish ended Aztec sacrifices in the 16th century, and by the 19th century, British and American efforts stamped out Pawnee practices through laws and missions. In South America, the Incas offered children in "capacocha," and the Moche slew captives for weather rituals. The Spanish, led by Pizarro in the 1530s, halted these, imposing Catholicism. In Africa, the Dahomey Kingdom executed hundreds yearly in "Annual Customs." The Ashanti sacrificed slaves at royal funerals, and the Zulu under Shaka killed thousands for power. Yoruba and Congolese tribes also held rituals. The British, French, and Belgians banned these in the 19th century, with missionaries branding them diabolical, nearly wiping them out by the early 20th century. Christian colonizers—British, Spanish, French, Belgians—played a pivotal role in ending human sacrifices. Through laws, military force, and missionary work, they replaced these traditions with Christianity, relegating them to history. P.S. There you have it, the true essence of Western colonial oppressors! How do they even sleep at night with such a shameful past? Outrageous, really!

I pray for people constantly. I even included a prayer for people in my signature I pray for people constantly. I even included a prayer for people in my signature. I have an expanded version of a prayer based on the Bible (Matt. 6 and 7; Luke 11) (Ps. 108 and 138) (Jer. 18:21-23; Lam. 3:64-66). It’s a pity I can’t show you my favorite daily prayer.

You said scientists see evolution, like when bacteria change, and this confirms common descent. But they only see that "letters" in DNA change, and they call it a mutation, thinking it’s random. I believe it could be programmed by the Creator so living things can adapt. Scientists don’t know the "language" of DNA: they understand only 2% of DNA, and 98% is a mystery. They don’t know the "words" or the "story"—how it all works together. Without that, they can’t prove the changes are random and not part of a program. It’s like seeing letters change in a book but not knowing what the book says because the language is unknown. You mentioned the chromosome fusion with "broken" telomeres, saying it proves evolution, not design. But it could be part of a system the Creator made—we just don’t understand why it’s like that. You brought up the "broken" vitamin C gene, which doesn’t work in primates, and said it hasn’t gained new functions. But that doesn’t mean it won’t—maybe we haven’t found them because we don’t know the "language." You said cytochrome C confirms evolution because its similarity matches ancestry. But I think it shows the Creator used similar "tools" for different creations, even if they look different.

I appreciate your calculations, but they don’t refute my analogy. You calculated that over 3 million years, there could be 720 billion mutations, which is 1200 times more than needed for the 400–600 million differences between human and chimp DNA. But your calculations are overly simplistic. You assume all mutations are unique and accumulate linearly, which isn’t the case. Many mutations overlap or cancel each other out, and most don’t get fixed in the population due to natural selection and genetic drift. Plus, you’re not accounting for the fact that the 13–19% difference includes not just point mutations but also insertions, deletions, and chromosomal rearrangements, which take far longer to fix. My analogy with the Bible still holds: a 13–19% difference is like removing all four Gospels or even the entire New Testament. It’s not just about the number of letters—it’s about the meaning. Even if there are "enough" mutations in quantity, that doesn’t mean they automatically create the right changes in the "meaning" of DNA—its biological functions. We still don’t understand the "language" of DNA, as I said: we know the "syntax" (nucleotide sequence), but not the "semantics" (regulation) or the "plot" (functions). So, counting mutations alone is like counting letters in the Bible without understanding its text.

, I understand you want to improve the logical quality of my arguments, and I appreciate your effort. But honestly, I see more criticism than actual help in your words. You point out logical limitations and call my explanations "guesses," but you don’t show how to do it better. Enough with the criticism—if your goal is truly to help, give me specific advice on how to reframe my points to be more logical. Show me how it’s done, and I’ll take a look.

Shalom, Retrobyter, I appreciate your comment, but I believe my approach is fully justified. You’re right that a positive approach—showing how a biblical worldview makes sense—can be a great lure. But you can’t force a conversation about God on someone who isn’t willing to talk about Him. If a person is open to discussing evolution, I’d rather meet them on their own ground, using their logic and language. My approach isn’t just about “defeating” their worldview by showing their theories don’t add up; it’s about letting them see the gaps in their own model for themselves. If they start questioning evolution, it might open the door to a conversation about biblical truth later, when they’re ready. For now, I focus on what we can discuss here and now—their own theory and its inconsistencies.

The similarity in DNA may point to a single Creator, but the 13–19% gap makes evolution mathematically impossible. Even the knowledge we have about DNA supports intelligent design, while there’s not enough evidence to prove evolution. We understand only 2% of sequenced genes, but we don’t know the language of DNA, meaning we don’t grasp its "words" or the meaning of its "story." The very fact that genes have been sequenced already suggests intelligent design. It’s like a book in an unknown language: you don’t understand the text, but you see it’s not a random jumble of letters—it’s an ordered set of words. It’s logical to conclude the book has an author. At this level, it’s clear that God wrote the genetic code like a programmer writes programs—each one separately, not one "evolving" into another. While a programmer might reuse old code for a new program, the 13–19% difference shows that humans and monkeys are two independent "programs" created by the same Creator.

I understand your arguments, but they don’t convince me that genetics confirms evolution. You point to chromosome fusion, the "broken" vitamin C gene, and similarities in the cytochrome C molecule as evidence of common descent. But I see it differently. The fact that one human chromosome matches two chromosomes in apes could be part of a designed system—similarity doesn’t necessarily mean humans evolved from apes; it could be a shared "template" across different creations. The vitamin C gene, which you call "broken," might have another purpose we don’t yet understand—science often discovers functions for things once thought useless. As for cytochrome C, its similarity across all living things with small differences could be a sign of a unified design, not evolution—like an artist using similar colors for different paintings, but the paintings themselves are distinct. You say tests on organisms with known descent confirm evolution, but I believe DNA similarity is better explained by intelligent design, where the 13–19% difference between humans and chimps shows we were created distinct from the start, not evolved from a common ancestor.

I appreciate your offer to provide more examples, but I don’t think I’m under misconceptions about genetic similarity. My point is that focusing on simple percentages—like the 98% similarity claim—misses the bigger picture. The article you referenced, "Emergent Properties of Gene Regulatory Networks: Models and Data," shows that DNA is far more complex than just a sequence of letters, with regulatory networks creating significant differences even when sequences look similar. I’m not denying that genes between humans and chimps share similarities, but I’m questioning whether those similarities prove evolution. I understand that you’re saying non-coding DNA (the parts that don’t directly make proteins) might change more than coding DNA because it’s less critical for survival, according to evolutionary theory. But I don’t see how this confirms Darwinian theory. A 13–19% divergence—400–600 million nucleotides—is a massive gap. If non-coding DNA changes so much, it only highlights how different humans and chimps are, even in parts that evolutionists often call "junk." I believe this level of difference points to a designed system, where every part of DNA, coding or not, has a purpose we don’t fully understand yet. The huge divergence doesn’t fit with the idea of gradual changes through evolution—it suggests a fundamental difference from the start. I see your calculation, but I don’t think my math is at fault—it’s the assumptions behind your numbers that I question. You say 60 mutations per person per generation could add up to 720 billion mutations over 3 million years in a population of 100,000. But the 400–600 million nucleotide difference between humans and chimps isn’t just about random mutations piling up. Most mutations are neutral or harmful, as you noted, and natural selection would remove the harmful ones. However, for evolution to work, you need mutations that create new, functional traits—like the ones that supposedly turned a chimp-like ancestor into a human with speech, complex thought, and upright walking. The odds of random mutations creating such complex, coordinated changes in just 3 million years (not 6 million, as I previously stated, following your timeline) are incredibly low—some argue it’s mathematically impossible. I believe this level of difference and complexity points to a designed system, not random changes over time. I don’t think I have too much confidence in the precision of DNA—I think evolution underestimates its complexity. You mention the GULO gene, which in humans doesn’t work to produce vitamin C, unlike in some animals. Evolutionists call it a "broken" gene, but just because we don’t understand its function doesn’t mean it’s useless. Science often discovers purposes for so-called "junk" DNA years later. My analogy of DNA as a book written with extraordinary precision stands: every loop, overlap, and change might have a purpose we don’t yet see. Over 120,000 generations, natural selection might refine a system, but I don’t believe it can create the intricate design we see in DNA from scratch. The complexity of DNA suggests it was designed to work this way from the beginning, not that it evolved through trial and error. I’ve noted your points above, but I don’t agree that the complexity of DNA’s dynamics can be explained by natural processes, even if some intelligent design proponents, as you say, believe the universe was set up to let things develop naturally. I haven’t read Michael Denton’s Nature’s Destiny, but I’ll look into it. However, my view remains that the intricate, three-dimensional, and dynamic nature of DNA—where even small changes can lead to vast differences—points to a purposeful design, not a universe left to evolve on its own. A 13–19% divergence between humans and chimps, combined with the complexity of how DNA functions, suggests to me that it was created with intention, not that it developed through random natural processes over time.

My openness to learning depends on how you address the questions I raised in the topic

I’ve said before—I can’t know for sure what’s on God’s mind. Isaiah 55:8-9 says: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." So His plan isn’t something I can figure out. Plus, God has a unique plan for each person—not a one-size-fits-all deal. We can only lean on the Bible, but even there, prophets and righteous folks like Job or Moses tried to grasp God’s motives. And God’s response? "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?" (Job 38:4). Point is, His thoughts aren’t ours. Clarify if you want specifics—this question’s pretty broad!

I believe my analogy holds, and here’s why: even a small difference of 13–19% in DNA can radically change its "meaning," just as a tiny change in a book can completely alter its story—sometimes even flipping the meaning to the opposite. For example, consider the question: How do you think Pilate’s wife asked for Barabbas or Jesus? In the original Greek text, a single particle can change the entire meaning of the passage. Another example: What were the Jewish leaders, high priests, and elders envious of? The single word "envy" in the text creates so much confusion showing how one word can shift the understanding of an entire narrative. Now, in our analogy, we’re talking about a 13–19% difference between human and chimp DNA. At first glance, 13–19% might seem small, but it’s actually a massive gap—it’s not just one or two words. It’s 400–600 million nucleotides, and in our book analogy, those nucleotides are like letters. This isn’t a single word, a single page, or even a single chapter. It’s not even one book, like a Gospel within the Bible. Let’s break it down with the Bible as an example, using the King James Version (KJV) for consistency: The Gospel of Matthew: about 97,000 letters. The Gospel of Mark: about 58,000 letters. The Gospel of Luke: about 104,000 letters. The Gospel of John: about 78,000 letters. Adding them up: 97,000 + 58,000 + 104,000 + 78,000 = 337,000 letters. The entire Bible (KJV) has approximately 3,566,480 letters. So, the four Gospels make up (337,000 ÷ 3,566,480) × 100 ≈ 9.4% of the Bible. By a similar calculation, the entire New Testament accounts for about 22.3% of the Bible. That means a 13–19% difference in DNA is equivalent to 9.4–22.3% of the Bible’s text. Now, imagine removing 9.4–22.3% of the Bible—say, all four Gospels or even the entire New Testament. The unified story and meaning of the Bible would be completely lost. Yet, with the Bible, we know the language it’s written in. We can read and understand not only the meaning of the words but also the overarching plot. Even then, there are still disagreements in interpreting the text and the Bible as a whole due to small nuances. In the case of DNA, however, we don’t even know the language, the meaning of the "words," or the overall "plot." We’re still deciphering how DNA works—its "syntax" (the sequence of nucleotides) is known, but its "semantics" (how it’s regulated) and "narrative" (the biological functions it produces) remain largely unclear. So, counting the sequence of letters in DNA, without understanding the language, and then claiming humans are 98% chimp is misleading. On top of that, the comparison isn’t even fully accurate letter by letter—it’s not like the books match page for page. A 13–19% difference means entire sections, equivalent to whole books like the Gospels (9.4%), are different or missing, completely changing the "story" of the DNA. That’s why my analogy stands: a 13–19% difference isn’t small—it’s a chasm that can fundamentally alter the meaning, just as a single word or particle can change the interpretation of a biblical text. The Bible needs to be understood, not just have its letters counted. Similarly, with DNA, we need to understand it, not just count its letters. Can you imagine what biblical studies would look like if scholars could only count letters Bible?

Your interpretation of James Tour’s words doesn’t answer any of the questions.

Shalom, Retrobyter, I completely agree with you that DNA isn’t just a linear chain but a complex three-dimensional, and even dynamic, system that changes over time. You’re absolutely right to point out that DNA folds upon itself, creating overlaps that shift with age, making it dynamic rather than static. I understand your mention of a "fourth dimension" to likely refer to the temporal changes in DNA’s structure and function, such as epigenetic modifications or chromatin remodeling, which affect gene expression throughout an individual’s life. This complexity of DNA supports the perspective I expressed in my Shakespeare book analogy. I argued that comparing human and chimp DNA solely by sequence (e.g., the 98% similarity claim) is like comparing two books by their page count, ignoring their content. But as you’ve noted, DNA isn’t just a text—it’s a multi-layered system where three-dimensional organization and dynamics play a critical role. Moreover, when we account for all DNA differences—substitutions, insertions, deletions, rearrangements, and "junk" DNA—the divergence between humans and chimps is actually 13–19%, or 400–600 million nucleotides. Random mutations over 6 million years couldn’t account for such changes—it’s mathematically impossible. I believe this incredible complexity of DNA, including its three-dimensional and dynamic nature, points to it being a product of intentional design, not random evolution. If DNA is a book, it’s a book written with extraordinary precision, where every loop, every overlap, and every age-related change is designed to fulfill specific functions. Your insight about DNA’s dynamics only strengthens my conviction that evolutionary theory cannot explain such complexity, and we should view DNA as the result of intelligent design.

you claim that I know nothing about genetics and that my Shakespeare book analogy distorts reality, but let me explain why that’s not the case. I’ve carefully reviewed the article "Emergent Properties of Gene Regulatory Networks: Models and Data" you referenced, and it doesn’t contradict my position—it actually supports the idea that simply comparing DNA by percentage similarity is an oversimplification. My book analogy highlights that the often-cited 98% DNA similarity between humans and chimps doesn’t capture the full complexity. I base this on evidence showing that, when accounting for all DNA differences—substitutions, insertions, deletions, rearrangements, and so-called "junk" DNA—the divergence is actually 13–19%, or 400–600 million nucleotides out of 3.2 billion. This makes the idea of evolution through random mutations over 6 million years mathematically implausible, as accumulating such a number of changes would require an unrealistic mutation rate. I believe DNA is not a product of random evolution but of intentional design, where similarities and differences between species are purposefully created. The article you cited discusses gene regulatory networks (GRNs) and their emergent properties, showing how they drive complex biological behaviors like cell differentiation. It confirms that even small DNA changes, amplified by stochastic effects, can lead to significant phenotypic differences. This aligns with my analogy: if DNA is a book, the 98% similarity is just the "syntax," while the "semantics" (regulatory logic via GRNs) and "narrative" (phenotypic functions) define the real differences. However, this doesn’t prove evolution. On the contrary, the complexity of GRNs and their ability to create diversity from small changes can be interpreted as part of a designed system, where each "book" (genome) is crafted for a unique purpose. You argue that genetics confirms evolution, but I disagree. My book analogy doesn’t distort reality—it emphasizes that DNA is too complex to be the result of random mutations and that percentage similarity doesn’t explain why humans and chimps are so different. I don’t deny the scientific data on GRNs, but I interpret them differently: DNA isn’t a text that "evolved" but a designed system where every detail matters.

You caught me on my words. I admit it. I shouldn’t have written "no one died out there." It was a mistake, and I can explain why I wrote it. Sometimes my fingers can’t keep up with my thoughts. I was rushing while typing a lengthy text. What I meant to say was that the Indian people didn’t die out during British rule like the Native Americans did in North America. Thank you for pointing it out—I’m grateful and apologize if I misled anyone. But your reaction makes me think it was justified. You listed cases of people killing others and framed it as a reproach to the "West" for colonialism. Yet in India, people killed each other without the "West," including with Muslim involvement: Wars of Hindu kingdoms (pre-BC to early Middle Ages): Maurya, Gupta, and Chola waged wars with massacres. Muslim conquests (11th–16th centuries): Ghaznavids and the Delhi Sultanate destroyed cities and temples. Religious conflicts: Before colonization, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and later Muslims killed each other. Partition of India and Pakistan (1947): 200,000–2,000,000 dead. Pogroms in East Pakistan (1964): Hundreds killed. Gujarat massacre (2002): About 1,000 Muslims dead. Native Indians killed each other before Europeans arrived, then Muslims killed them, and in modern history, pogroms between Muslims and Hindus persist. About Africa: Africans vs. Africans Rwanda Genocide (1994): 500,000–1,000,000. Second Sudan Civil War (1983–2005): About 1,900,000. First Congo War (1996–1997): 200,000–250,000. Anyanya Genocide in Uganda (1972–1979): 100,000–500,000. Burundi Massacre (1972): 150,000–300,000. Muslims vs. Africans: Fulani Jihad (1804–1830s): Tens of thousands. East African slave trade (17th–19th centuries): Hundreds of thousands. Darfur Massacre (2003–present): 200,000–400,000. Bornu Expansion (16th–18th centuries): Tens of thousands. In Europe, Ottoman Turks: Constantinople Massacre (1453): Up to 40,000, pregnant women’s bellies slashed open. Batak Massacre (1876): 5,000, women and children slaughtered. Sack of Belgrade (1521): 10,000. Kosovo Field (1389): Thousands executed. Siege of Vienna outskirts (1683): 30,000, burned alive. Slave trade: Arab (7th–20th centuries): 10–18 million from Africa and Europe, men castrated, women sold to harems. Ottoman (14th–19th centuries): Captured slaves from the Balkans, Hungary, and Rus, markets thrived in Istanbul and Cairo. Pause the grim tallies. Touch the art. "The Kidnapping" The painting portrays a dramatic moment of abduction: a warrior on horseback a Ottoman soldier captures a victim. Author: Henri Félix Emmanuel Philippoteaux (1815–1884), a French battle painter known for his historical and military scenes. Now about Ukraine, where I’m from: Tatar raids (16th–17th centuries): Crimean Tatars, vassals of the Turks, burned villages in Podolia, Volhynia, and Galicia, killed residents, and enslaved tens of thousands yearly. Over two centuries, up to 2 million were taken. Slave trade: Ukrainians were sold in Ottoman markets (Istanbul, Cairo) as slaves, concubines, or janissaries. City destruction: Kyiv, Chernihiv razed, e.g., in 1482 and 1577. Boys and janissaries: Young Ukrainian boys (10–15) were taken, converted to Islam, trained in Ottoman schools as janissaries. They returned with Turks, brutally killing their own—burning villages, executing resistors. Girls and harems: Girls (12–16) were sold to harems of sultans and the wealthy. They were raped, forced to convert, and resistors were killed. Losses: Wars with Tatars and Turks weakened Ukraine, stunting its growth. Suffering ended only after Crimea joined Russia in 1783. In conclusion: murder, cruelty, and slavery aren’t just the "West." Muslims, Africans, and Indians were far from saints, despite how some portray them today. The "West" also brought order and progress, while others often brought only brutality. Throughout most of their shared history, relations between Muslims and Christians were defined by offense and counteroffense, jihad and crusades, conquest and reconquest. The loss of Lebanon and North Africa proved irreversible for the Christian world, and the Crusaders’ attempt to reclaim the Holy Land ultimately failed. The Reconquista—the reclamation of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors and of Rus from the Tatars—turned into a new large-scale Christian offensive in Africa and Asia, as the Spanish and Portuguese on one end of Europe, and the Russians on the other, surged into the native lands of their former overlords on the heels of their victories. The last great Muslim invasion of Europe, undertaken by the Ottoman Turks, faltered after the second unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1683. The defeat and subsequent retreat of the Turks marked the end of a thousand-year Muslim threat.

Yes. We’ve only just begun to realize that DNA isn’t merely a string of genetic letters—it’s an enormous, sophisticated book, written in a language we’re still deciphering. While we can now read the alphabet, we have almost no understanding of its plot, characters, or deeper meaning. "We’ve mapped the genome’s ‘syntax’ (base pairs), but its ‘semantics’ (regulatory logic) and ‘narrative’ (emergent biological functions) remain largely opaque." To claim humans are ‘98% chimpanzee’ based solely on letter-by-letter comparisons is like saying two novels are identical because they share the same number of pages—while ignoring that one is War and Peace and the other is a phone book. It’s not just an oversimplification; it’s a fundamental distortion of reality."

Sequencing genes doesn’t mean we understand them. The analogy illustrates this perfectly. Think of it like this: Sequencing genes = Sequencing text. It’s like a Chinese scholar realizing that what’s in front of him isn’t just a random jumble of letters—they’re arranged in a precise order, forming an actual book, not meaningless scribbles. That realization—that there’s a structured text rather than chaos—is what sequencing means. But here’s the catch: the scholar still doesn’t grasp the meaning of the book. At best, he understands 2% of it—essentially just the title on the cover. The fact that humans and apes are both mammals means nothing. Here’s a list of other mammals: Blue whale, Orca, African elephant, Platypus, Armadillo, Pangolin, Narwhal What does that prove? Being in the same biological class tells us nothing about how or why we’re fundamentally different. A whale shares mammalian traits with us too—does that make us aquatic giants?