Did a squirrel and a human share a common ancestor,if so was it squirrelish or humanish?

now i'm lolling 'cause I work with this bucktooth chick, and i'm wondering if I can ask her if she wants any nuts...Did a squirrel and a human share a common ancestor,if so was it squirrelish or humanish?
We share the same Creator : )





All animals, plants, humans, the world, the universe, all are things made by God.











What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.





Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.





Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.





What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].





7.Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:








There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.





There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.


These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.





The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!Did a squirrel and a human share a common ancestor,if so was it squirrelish or humanish?
*All* life on Earth shares a common ancestor. Everything is related to everything else.





Squirrels and humans diverged tens of millions of years ago, not long after the dinosaurs were wiped out. The common ancestor between them would be a small rodent, like a shrew or mouse.
well all mammals share a common ancestor. The last common ancestor with humans and squirrels would be going back quite a bit, and while it would probably look more like a squrrel and than a human, it wouldn't really look much like either
Yes. It may not have been particularly reminiscent of either, but it would, I suppose, far more resemble the squirrel than modern man.
All living things on earth share a common ancestor: Prokaryote.
Ooo! Maybe.





I hope we did, it'd be nice to be related to squirrels. Even though I haven't seen a real squirrel before...





;]
Yes a shrew-like ancestor
It was a procaryotic cell in the days of the earth without an atmosphere.
Sqhuman
retarded question.