If Humans and chimps have a close to 100% similarity in DNA? Is that ignorance or what?

The result isn't deadly. We just don't use ape blood because of the potential existence of zootropic pathogens in said blood. Human blood may contain known diseases, but the main way of identifying them is through the existence of large numbers of antibodies for those pathogens. Using chimpanzee blood for transfusions wouldn't be cost or time effective.

Besides, the difference between humans and chimpanzees is only about 90-95%. Where did you get the idea that it was 100%? Humans aren't even 100% identical to each other...

It's not possible because our blood is not the same. Even different types of human blood must be matched for a simple transfusion between 2 humans. Humans have O Positive, O Negative, A Positive, A Negative, B Positive, B Negative, AB Positive, and AB Negative, and any human cannot receive any other human's blood. Does this mean my mother and father are of different species because they have different blood types? Using the wrong human blood type can also be deadly.

We are not ancestors of apes.

I have seen many of your questions on this site over the years, but have never seen a good argument against evolution. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

You still haven't learned that you don't know squat about evolution.

As @Welltraveled pointed out, chimps DO have similar blood types. So that shoots down your ignorance-based stupid argument--as all of your arguments are.

Added

And @Big Guy 360 doesn't know what he is talking about.

>"Ape is only 98.5% and a Dog is only 98.1% so the ape is actually closer to a dog then human."

Bullcrap! In the first place, dogs are closer to 90% similar to humans in their DNA, not 98.1%. And besides that, saying that (using @Big Guy's percentages) species A is 98.1% similar to species B, and species C is 98.5% similar to species B does NOT necessarily make species A and C more similar to each other.

In fact, to the contrary, species A will likely be more different from either of the other two species. If, say, all three species had a common ancestor 10 million years ago and a branch split off at that time and eventually evolved into species A, and then 9 million years ago another branch split off from the other line and eventually evolved into species C. The remaining line then eventually evolved into species B. Species A (98.1%), since it would have separated from the other branches the longest would have the greatest difference in its genome from the other two species, and species B (the compared to species) and species C (98.5%) would have more genetic similarity to each other than either one to species A.

So @Big Guy 360 is a typical creationist who doesn't know squat about either genetics or evolution, just like Asker Shooting Star.

And @MC2=E presents an irrelevancy.

>"The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species,"

His link is not working, but here is another link.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=h...

What is presented there shows that gene duplication is what actually drives evolution. The duplicated genes can mutate and provide new functions.

But here is a kicker.

About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.

That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.

Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215...

These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://www.genome.gov/13514624

No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.

For clarification. Since all of the great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the chimpanzee is our closest ape relative as indicated by comparison of the DNA of each species, the combining of the two chromosomes must have occurred in the line leading to humans after the separation from the line leading to chimps.

There may have been an evolutionary advantage in having on a single chromosome two particular genes that were originally on the two separate chromosomes. For example, the two genes may have complemented each other, and their ending up on a single combined chromosome kept that complement intact.

The genetic advantage would have been naturally selected in the individuals having the combined chromosomes, and the combined chromosomes would have been spread throughout the population over succeeding generations of the line leading to humans.

So, once again, you creationists show you don't know squat!

"People often say we share a common ancestor with apes because"

a whole variety of reasons, including DNA similarities.

"Now the Atheist is going to say "close to 100% is still too big of a difference to use for blood". If tht's the case, then who are you to say that we are ancestors of apes by that few % difference! "

Argument does not make sense.

Why would anyone expect it to be 100% similar? Evolutionists do not claim chimps are the same species as humans, and the human body will reject blood from another species. Just because we're seperate species doesn't mean there can't possibly be a relation, and genetic similarity certainly does suggest one.

Just because you have trouble understanding how a small difference in DNA is enough to prevent a successful blood transfusion between humans and chimps does not mean that a small difference in DNA is not enough to prevent a successful blood transfusion between humans and chimps. Science is about what the evidence tells us not what makes sense to our intuition.

Humans have blood types of A,B,AB, and O.

Chimps have blood types of A and O.

And guess what? With proper screening for antibodies and viruses, humans with type A and O blood can indeed get transfusions from chimps with type A and O blood.

Oops, there goes your ignorant rant.

Here, go learn something:

http://www.savethechimps.org/chimp-facts

Peace.

Humans are close? That depends on what you mean by close. Close to 100% which apes are about 98.5% close to the same DNA. So to some that is close and to those whom believe in Evolution it a giant leap towards their belief. But by the facts, DNA that is only 99% is still a completely different species. Ape is only 98.5% and a Dog is only 98.1% so the ape is actually closer to a dog then human. But then you don't hear about that do you. The evolutionists don't tell you that do they?

"If Humans and chimps have a close to 100% similarity in DNA?"

All that means is the Creator used what works in more than one application.

Apparently the difference is only 1.5% hence why chimps are the smartest wild animals on the planet