Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different

QUOTE: Despite significant similarities in our DNA and few differences in our protein-coding genes, the human forebrain is larger and more complex than that of the chimpanzee.

First of all, the heading is a bit obvious, isn’t it?. I doubt if many people would say chimps are us. Secondly the quote and the article hardly claim that our brain genetics are VERY different.

DAVID: Why should a gene and non-coding DNA that eventually makes us, have appeared way before us at 100 million years ago? Luck or God's purpose?

Of course, no one can answer that question, and it’s a shame that even you can’t ask your all-powerful God why – if his one and only purpose was to design humans – he didn’t just get on with it instead of designing all the little bits and pieces one by one, not to mention designing all the other organismal bits and pieces that led to all those species that had no connection with humans.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

C.S. Lewis: No matter how God might have made the universe and life, skeptics would surely complain about something to the point of disbelief. What we have here isn’t truth-seeking, but rather, game rigging.
"For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (David’s bold)

Belief in an omnipotent, infinite God is not based on astronomy! I find it ridiculous to claim that the vastness of the universe in any way proves God’s existence or his non-existence. C.S. Lewis is right about the blinkered sceptics but is totally blind to the fact that the faithful are equally blinkered, since they would claim that whatever anybody discovers will be seen as the work of their God. The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: this is same argument as to why did God bothered with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. See “giraffe plumbing.” I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

DAVID: Atheists have the same God complaints as agnostics as they search for logical reasons to refute God.

Stop there. Agnostics are neutral on the subject. We see logical reasons on both sides and we do not refute either side. It is one of your pet dodges to claim that my criticism of your arguments is due to my not believing in God, whereas they are all directed against your illogical interpretation (bolded above) of your God’s nature, purpose(s) and methods.

DAVID: It starts with a reasonable view of who God is, noting my bold. I don't see dhw ever starting from that position. When he discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.