The general public has heard repeatedly that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98-99% similar. It is implied that the charts of human DNA were held up next to chimp DNA and they were virtually identical. But ICR contributor Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins notes that, “The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.” First of all, “The human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.” Dr. Tompkins further explains, “One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often omitted from the scope of the analysis.” Non-coding parts of the human genome are often referred to as “junk DNA.” The purpose of such a label is to imply that this area of the human genome is unimportant. But, Dr. Tompkins clarifies, “The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions,” which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells.” And not only are these areas critically important, but they are a big part of what makes humans human. “The largest differences [between chimp and human DNA] are observed in regard to brain function, dexterity, speech, and other traits with strong cognitive components….a number of recent studies are also confirming that close to 93 percent of the genome is transcriptionally active (functional).6 Not so long ago, scientists thought that only 3 to 5 percent of the genome that contained the protein coding regions was functional; the rest was considered “junk DNA.” In fact, many scientists are back-pedaling in response to this new data. “Evolutionists are now reversing themselves and claiming that the non-coding DNA is where important features related to human evolution are located .”
A new research study (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin) by Dr. Tompkins published in Answers Research Journal this month did a comprehensive comparison of human and chimp DNA without any pre-sorting and using all of the available genome sequence. Here are the results of the study: “Average sequence identity between human and chimp for both phases of the study varied between 86 and 89 percent.” So, the oft-repeated mantra of 98-99% similarity is wrong. Previous estimates were pre-screened and sorted for similarity which generated an artificially-high similarity. Much of the unmatched human genome was discarded as “junk DNA” but geneticists are now finding that these areas of the human genome (which have no similarity to the chimp genome) are in critical areas which make humans humans. Without agenda-driven cherry-picking, a broad-based straight-up comparison results in genetic differences 10 times what was previously reported by evolutionists to the public.
http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/
That’s actually not surprising–even if human and chimp DNA were as similar as previously claimed, it was clear that -which- genes were different must have been truly significant, because of the size of our physical differences.
However, I’d have to argue that this does not override the dozens of transitional species in the fossil records that clearly trace the path of human evolution from a shared ancestor with apes. We did not, of course, evolve from chimpanzees–rather chimpanzees and humans shared an ancestor millions of years ago, and both species have undergone massive genetic changes since that time.
The transitional fossils just won’t go away. The recent discoveries like Australopithecus sediba are especially convincing–there’s a clear mixing of human and ape-like features going on, and a clear timeline for the progression of the development of human features. Sediba features some “missing links,” and more such fossils are discovered every year. I’ve yet to hear a convincing theological explanation for this.
By: kagmi on January 8, 2012
at 6:03 pm
kagmi:
Thank you for your comment. I wonder what is the agent of these “massive genetic changes?” Geneticists agree that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. A tiny fraction are neutral and a infinitessimally small number are actually beneficial. Not good odds for “molecules to man” evolution even allowing for billions of years and a whole lot of luck.
Also, I wonder where are the “dozens of transitional species” you refer to? Are you talking about creatures like the australopithecines? They have been shown to have ape morphology, not human or even pre-human. “Lucy” for example exhibits an ape skull, ape jaw, ape teeth, ape ear bone structure, conical ape ribcage, round rib bones, ape shoulders, locking wrists, curved metacarpals, and an ape pelvis. Perhaps you meant Neanderthals, homo erectus, or Heidelberg Man. These all have features which fall well within the morphological range of modern humans and new discoveries make them appear more “modern” every day. Homo floresiensis is now thought to be a modern human group characterized by microcephaly. They are quite similar to pygmy or aboriginee morphology. I know you didn’t mean “Ida” which was embarassingly shown to be a lemur, not a human ancestor. Apes remain apes and humans remain humans.
And remember that speciation is not an engine of evolution. It only creates more varieties of the same kind of creature. It’s just swishing around the same genetic information you start with, not adding anything new. New features come from a loss of information and degraded/damaged genes. That’s hardly upward evolutionary change.
By: Rob Lester on January 8, 2012
at 8:08 pm
Thanks for the reply. As to your points–
It’s true that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. Improving a gene by mutating it is a bit like fixing a watch by throwing it off the roof. However, very rarely, that does happen (I have a pretty good record of fixing things using the throw-it-at-the-wall approach myself
).
This is most easily demonstrateable in the lab through bacteria. E. coli bacteria in laboratory test tubes have been seen to, in a few rare cases, spontaneously evolve the ability to use new food sources or to grow and reproduce without oxygen. The latter mutation has been called by a speciation event by some scientists, since oxygen dependence i s one of the defining characteristics of E. coli.
So it does happen. Just much more rarely than the, say, millions of harmful mutations that E. coli experience every day in laboratory settings (or inside your body, for that matter.) It would actually be shocking if speciation -couldn’t- occur through mutation, since there’s absolutely no reason that genes can’t mutate in helpful ways. If any part of a gene can change in any way through random error, that includes parts that may be holding it back.
As to transitional fossils, I am indeed referring to the Ardipithecines, the Australopithecines, and of course the other Homo species. While I know that some are disputed–the possible identify of “Homo florensis” as an individual with microcephaly, for example–there are some bone structures that are quite clearly neither human nor ape. Australopithecus sediba displays a distinct and surprising combination of ape- and human-like bones in its wrists and ankles, for example. Much earlier than A. sediba, Ardipithecus ramidus shows clearly nonhuman features all throughout her skeleton, yet she also has several bone structures that indicate she walks upright.
By: kagmi on January 11, 2012
at 1:17 pm