Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Chimp-human-dna


View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Chimp-human-dna on Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:22 pm



The evidence of human-chimp genome similarity
1. For the past several decades, the standard has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees.
2. The well-known chimpanzee genome paper published  in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated. [1, 2]
3. Geneticist Richard Buggs took an exacting approach in calculating genome-wide DNA similarity using data from both the 2005 chimp genome report and the human genome project in a brief news report published in 2008. Because Buggs’ estimates closely match the outcome of this study, his work is quoted below.
   “To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.”
   “Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.”
   “In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single “letter” is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.”
   “We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This “copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.”
   “This figure does not include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or “scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled (Buggs 2008).”
4. The details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
5. The preliminary analyses of Buggs (2008) and Progetto cosmo (2012) indicate that in conflict with evolutionary claims, overall chimp DNA similarity compared to human may be as low as 70% or less.
6. Hypothetical evolutionary processes cannot explain the extremely broad differences between chimp and human DNA when the whole genomes (full DNA sequence of an organism) are considered.
7. The similar regions between genomes indicate the basic reuse of effective code what is known and done by software engineers. Expert DNA engineering in nature points to the Great Designer or God, who has manufactured all the wondrous diversity of life on Earth, and who bridged the gaps between the species.
8. God exists.

1. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
2. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.

DNA Doesn't Lie -- and that includes Gorilla DNA: It turns out that 15 percent of the gorilla genome is closer to humans than to chimps! Bob and Fred point out that for many decades Darwinists have claimed that humans are closest to chimpanzees. So this throws yet another monkey wrench into the theory of evolution. The "puzzling surprises..." are reported in Nature. "The standard view of the great-ape family tree is that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla — because chimps and humans diverged more recently. But, 15% of human genes look more like the gorilla version than the chimp version." The guys also review the enormous and unpredicted difference between the human Y chromosome and the chimp Y, and the human genome generally with the published comparisons of the sponge genome, a worm, and the kangaroo genome!

Gorilla joins the genome club

Puzzling surprises

But the genome sequencing has thrown up surprises, too. The standard view of the great-ape family tree is that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla — because chimps and humans diverged more recently. But, 15% of human genes look more like the gorilla version than the chimp version.

Much of the 15% is in sections of the genome that do not code for proteins. But the researchers also looked at functional gene changes. They found that certain genes — including some involved in hearing and brain development — had gone through more rapid changes than expected in both the gorilla and human lineage.

In Dr. Kuhn's view, this poses a problem for Darwinian evolution because the "[t]he ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins."

And if someone tells you that chimps and humans share a common ancestry remind them that even with a difference of a mere 1% (it's actually much more) that's 35,000,000 base changes by point mutation. The last common ancestor between human and chimp is supposed to have existed 6 million years ago, at 20 years per generation that's 300,000 generations.

To go from the last common ancestor to us requires 117 point mutations to be fixed in the population every generation. Evolutionist Haldane proposed that it would take 300 generations for 1 point mutation to become fixed in a sexually reproducing organism. 117 (or 58 if we split the two family trees) would lead to inevitable error catastrophe in the organism as harmful mutations (am estimated 90% of mutations are harmful) would accumulate faster than natural selection could eliminate them (although as Sanford explains in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, natural selection doesn't really do much against gradual accumulation of harmful mutations) as laid out by Walter Remines in The Biotic Message.

Basically, once again, we see evolutionists appealing to magic rather than science.

Last edited by Admin on Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:23 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: Chimp-human-dna on Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:42 pm



functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it's explained by common descent.

Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

Photo copyrightedIf humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.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.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.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].

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!

View user profile

3 Re: Chimp-human-dna on Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:36 pm


At the risk of beating a dead horse into glue, the genetic evidence for human-chimp common ancestry is far less robust for the neo-Darwinian position than Darwinists pretend.
Firstly, the similarity between humans and chimps has been vastly overplayed by Neo-Darwinists:

The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video

Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013
Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site)
All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.

Secondly, widely divergent species are found to be far more similar to humans than would be presupposed on a Darwinian framework:

Podcast – Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”…/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-…/

Kangaroo genes close to humans
Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,“We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”…/science%20Ne…/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118

Thirdly, where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest,,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,…

Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,…/131017144632.htm

“Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video

Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms – (Nov. 6, 2012)…/121106201124.htm

,,,where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest is the place where changes to the genome are least likely to be tolerated.

A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” -
Eric Davidson…/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

Darwin’s Doubt (Part Cool by Paul Giem – developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information – video…

Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough, body plans are not even reducible to DNA in the first place as is presupposed in Neo-Darwinism:

Response to John Wise – October 2010
Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.…/response_to_john_wise038811.…
Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video
Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

supplemental notes: The anatomy of chimps and humans differ far more than Neo-Darwinists have led people to believe,,,

The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”

Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution – August 9, 2014
Excerpt: The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully.…/why-keith-blanchard-reall…/

Moreover, Neo- Darwinists have no demonstrated examples of speciation in the lab,,,

Scant search for the Maker
Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.…

In fact, laboratory evolution experiments going back four decades reveal that unguided Darwinian processes are far more likely to break things than ever build things up. Thus, any inheritance of beneficial, information bulding, mutations, as is presupposed in neo-Darwinism, is a purely a figment of imagination with no basis in experimental science:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.…/the-first-rule-of-adapti…/

Verse and Music:

Matthew 6:20
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Mandisa – Esther – Born For This – music video

Also of note:

The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! – Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos

CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;

The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) – 2011 – video
THE NON-MYTHICAL ADAM AND EVE by (Dr. Robert Carter) – 2014 video

View user profile

4 Re: Chimp-human-dna on Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:52 pm


New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA 1

A chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimp DNA. The bars show the percent match on the chimpanzee chromosome to the corresponding portion of human DNA. (figure from the study being discussed)
NOTE: Based on comments below by Glenn (who is mentioned in the article) and Aceofspades25, there are questions regarding the analysis used in Dr. Tomkins’s study, upon which this article is based. Until Dr. Tomkins addresses these questions, it is best to be skeptical of his 88% similarity figure.
More than two years ago, Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, a former director of the Clemson University Genomics Institute, performed a detailed, chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA using a widely-recognized computer program known as BLAST. His analysis indicated that, on average, human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar. This is far, far, below the 95-99% numbers that are commonly cited by evolutionists, so once I read the study, I wrote a summary of it. Well, Dr. Tomkins has done a new study, and it invalidates the one he did two years ago.
The new study was done because last year, a computer programmer of financial trading algorithms (Glenn Williamson) discovered a bug in the BLAST algorithm that Tomkins used. This bug caused the program to ignore certain matches that should have been identified, which led to an artificially low similarity between the two genomes. As any responsible scientist would do, Dr. Tomkins took this issue seriously and did a detailed analysis of several different versions of the BLAST program. His analysis showed that most of the newer versions of the program were bugged, including the one used in his study two years ago.
As a result, Dr. Tomkins redid his study, using the one version of BLAST that did not contain the bug. His results are shown above. As you can see, every chromosome in the chimpanzee genome, with the exception of the Y chromosome, matched a corresponding region of the human genome by somewhere between 85% and 90%. The overall similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes was 88%. While this is still far lower than the 95%,98%, or 99% similarity touted by many evolutionists, it is much higher than the 70% found in his previous study.
To make sure that these new results aren’t an artifact of some other unknown issue in the BLAST computer program, Dr. Tomkins also did his analysis with two other programs: nucmer and LASTZ. The nucmer program’s results agreed with the unbugged BLAST results: on average the human and chimpanzee genomes are 88% similar. The LASTZ program produced a lower average similarity (73%), which indicates that perhaps LASTZ has a bug or is not optimized for such comparisons, since its results are very close to the results Dr. Tomkins got with the bugged version of BLAST.
I think this is the most comprehensive comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA that has been done, so I am inclined to take the results (88% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA) as the best number we have to date. Of course, I said something similar about Dr. Tomkins’s previous study (which turned out to be wrong), so take that statement with a grain of salt! [later addition:It might not be the best number we have to date. See note at the top of the article.]


View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum