Richard Dawkins is evolving faster than the rest of us

Richard Dawkins never fails to draw interest with his documentaries (like The Genius of Darwin), though sometimes it's for the wrong reasons. He can often be unintentionally funny, being that he's rather nerdy. He's especially drole when he tries to show everyone that all knowledge rests inside his cranium, while deriding otherwise polite people. Nothing like a strident pedant to create levity.
For example, when he goes into churches, as an atheist, and tries to ridicule the believers and the preacher (in front of his flock)*, he stops being a scientist and becomes a zealot!

Missionary zeal, from an atheist.

His grand insult? "That's ... absurd!" in an Oxfordian accent.

A NERDY frickin' cowboy. It's ILL!

How would he like it.... anyway, point made. Let's move on.
[pic- wikipedia.org]
Although I generally believe in evolution and accept the proof that's been presented, there are some other, perhaps more interesting questions that have not been raised yet.
Genetic similarity is not hard to believe, but it's the math that surprises me. Let's discuss:
human to human
human to chimp
human to mouse
human to fly

"human to human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5% (99.5% similarity)." (Wikipedia, human genetic variation). So, we're ALL pretty much the same, as if we didn't know. Unfortunately, racists don't read genetic studies. Hard to read through those hoods, even if they could read.

Anyway, there are millions of sequences within the DNA of complex beings, so it's hard to play simple mathematics with the similarities between us and 'animals'. But, here goes:

Chimps, our entertaining cousins
We now say that we have a 95% similarity with chimpanzees (see 1. below). Since we can see the shape of their bodies as similar, their limbs, face etc. are fairly human-like, and they're fun at parties!
They play with their feces, as do humans, by being 'anally-retentive', by being "arseholes" and throwing around verbal substitutes for fecal matter, known as 'talking shit' and being 'full of shit'. We both sniff butts. We groom our young, picking lice from their... fur.
These are major cultural similarities.
UPDATE: Sam Wollaston (Guardian 14 Dec. 09) "People get carried away with chimps, and go all gooey about how similar they are to us. I think the really remarkablee thing, given that they share 99% of our DNA, is how incredibly different they are. Look at them! That 1% that we have and they don't must be the really good stuff. So, as Sir D says, chimps do show kindness and compassion, empathy, intelligence, and the ability to plan, share, experiment and pass on individual learning from one generation to the next."

HOWEVER!
Dawkins, in his infinite wisdom, mentioned how we are more closely related to chimps than horses are to asses (the animal, not the human posterior appendage). SOOooo, horses and asses can breed and therefore create offspring. Dawkins, alternately smiling and laughing says something like:

'You know what I'm getting at, right?'

Well, either his girlfriend's a bonobo, or he's in favour of crossbreading humans and chimps.
Well, it's about time that taboo was broken (life's been boring since Trannies got into the mainstream). When we were told, 20-something years ago, that AIDS came from chimps, I thought "who's the poor lonely pee-wee dick who had Biblical knowledge of our knuckle-dragging cousins?"
I'll bet it was one of Dawkins' post-doctoral researchers. He wanted to be famous, or maybe he was under the spell of the "guru of genetics".
[pic- an alluring pose]
[Sam Wollaston: "Plus we have nicer arses-well some of us do. That's another problem I have with primates. Fine from the front, cute even; not all fine from behind, baboons especially."]

Still, I have no doubt that Dawkins has inadvertently changed the course of human history by coming out in favour of cross-breeding humans and chimps.
Do you know where this will all lead? I don't know, but I think we're gonna make a prophet out of the writer of Planet of the Apes (1963), Pierre Boulle (in French, Planet des Singes= monkeys/apes).
This dystopian thriller was supposed to be about another planet, but, if the movie is to be believed, it is presented as the future of the Earth.
The link between science and the Planet scenario is made by Kevin Smith in "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back". Here's the scene, lampooning the prophecy, with the buried Statue of Liberty, even:

While I appreciate the need for some lab work to study the issue in theory, but I think plain stupid scientists are gonna go one step too far, then we're all screwed (see Monsanto).
I suppose in this day and age, with Big Brother ratings falling (and the grand Orwellian plan with it), THIS and only this man/chimp experiment will be able to keep people watching television when they'd rather be checking porn on the net.

imagine the shows, nay, the entire series,

based on some of the following viral concepts:

THE PRELIMINARY STUDY
BEAKERS AND WANKERS
SPLICING GENES

THE HUMAN SPECIMEN
PICKING THE PRETTIEST CHIMP
THE IMPLANTATION
THE GESTATION
THE INTRA-UTERINE VIDEO

THE BIRTH

THE MAMMARY ACTION
OEDIPAL MURDER

As the Planet series shows, our mixed progeny will be violent (and hairy),
as we once were.
We have most certainly lost our edge.
They shall beat the living crap out of us.
Beheading and drawing & quartering of enemies were once part of life.
Warfare was a constant for 10 000 years.
Blood and guts, vendettas
and killing our own dinner.
Literally taking a wife.
Private eyes downing scotch,
smoking weed
and bagging women.
Ahhh, the good old days.

Us guys are all now equality-friendly,
gay-friendly,
tranny-friendly, etc.
Fully-grown men are cowering
in front of their female bosses.
Metrosexuals are held up as role models.

Skin care, hair grafts, viagra, man-boobs, estrogen in the water supply.
Real men are being beaten to a pulp by transvestites, in today's news, for example:

Perhaps we've come to the end of the line.
Perhaps it is time we passed the baton
to the chimps!
Let's give them the vote.
It ain't worth much anyway.

Next issue. The degree of genetic similarity between humans and other beings is hard to believe:

the mouse has 75% similarity with humans (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112)

The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (http://www.genome.gov/10005835)

[pic- I can see 54 of you, officer.]
So, how can this basic building block of life, DNA, come up with a fly larva, then, if you change only two-thirds of the genes (40/60), POP! out comes a HUMAN baby?
[pic- fly, human! fly!]
What is the true difference between us and flies?

Is it the fact that humans read newspapers, and flies avoid them,
lest they be squashed by one?

Is it that flies can breed INSIDE disused televisions,

while humans breed IN FRONT OF televisions?

there are similarities:

We've always wanted to fly, even though it's risky.
We like many of the same foods.
Humans never die alone;
flies are the first to know (thanks CSI).

There's something they're not telling us.
Why are we so different from animals and other forms of life, when we are so genetically similar?
Perhaps it's God after all, eh, Dawkinsy?
Maybe it's the UFO visitations? Let's ask the scientologists or the raelians. Roswell holds the secrets, man!

-Costick67 (8^P

pics from fotosearch.com

*He doesn't discuss how the others view Darwinism, he just calls them names. He must have been beat up in the school yard as a kid:

"That's ...absurd!"

--Whack---
____
1. extra info from:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

However, these researchers may have been missing some crucial information, said Roy J. Britten, a geneticist at the California Institute of Technology in Corona del Mar. Britten is a co-developer of the method originally used to look for genetic similarities in the 1970s.

The early methods only take into account certain types of evolutionary change called substitutions, said Britten. Substitutions occur when one of the four molecules that join to form DNA—called a nucleotide—is replaced by one of the other three types.

However, this isn't the only type of change, or mutation, that can occur through evolution, said Britten. Single nucleotides or whole sections of DNA can end up being deleted or inserted into the existing sequence. These kinds of changes are known as indels, he said.

Due to the paucity of long strings of accurately sequenced DNA data, it hasn't been possible until recently to compare the number of indels between sequences, said Nelson.

Britten decided to re-examine the question of genetic similarity looking at both indels and nucleotide substitutions. He compared long DNA sequences—735,000 nucleotides in length—taken from both the human and chimpanzee genome databases. Britten reports his findings in the upcoming issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study became available online September 23.

Filling the Gaps

While the results confirmed that single nucleotide substitutions did account for roughly 1.4 percent of the differences, in accordance with previous estimates, Britten also found that indels account for a further 3.9 percent of divergence. This gives a rough estimate of five percent difference, he said.

-----

More from Wollaston (Guardian). [male chimp gives tool to female for her to crack a nut] And in doing so, says Sir David [Attenborough], he shows great kindness and compassion. Shut up! The reason he's doing it-the reason a male of any species, be it Pan troglodytes or Homo sapiens, lends his hammer to a female- is because he thinks there could be a shag in it. A simple too-for-sex trade, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Hammer, whammer, bammer, thank you mamma."