Chimpanzee DNA

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102278.html

From within the article:

More profoundly, however, the achievement promises to help answer the alluring but loaded question of what, exactly, makes us truly human.

Good luck. Comparing molecules of a complex DNA chain won't tell you that. Will there be a gene that can explain our self-awareness? Will there be a gene that explains why we value something at biologically useless as the beauty of a sunset?

Anyway, as to my previous post, here's something I saw in a blog, with reference to this article

Somewhere at This Very Moment ... a Young Earth Creationist's head just imploded like a swiftly punctured hot water bottle.

Honestly, I don't get it. There's nothing in that article that subtracts from the fundamental first question: where did the atoms come from to create the DNA? The implied sentiment of that comment is: if it's possible to demonstrate that some change in the molecular structure of life has occurred over time, it's proof-positive that it's all the product of pure random chance.

Plus ... science by now has an understanding of all the building blocks -- molecular structures, DNA, the chemistry of protein folding, etc., etc. The assignment: create life in the lab using only elemental compounds. (No gene splicing, no starting with already-formed amino acids ... start with the basic elements ... simple carbon strings, oxygen, etc.)

Can you tell this area frustrates me?