For a very long time, the evolutionist choir has been propagating the
unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between
humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could
read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there
is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human". Although no conclusive
comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist
ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between
the two species.
A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like
many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar"
as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to
be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans,
chimps more different than thought", they report the following:
There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a
human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.
Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and
humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist
at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this
week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp
genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.
Britten based this on a computer program that compared
780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those
of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and
concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.
This led him to conclude that there is
a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.
New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter
of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article
titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":
We are more unique than previously thought,
according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long
been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our
closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less
than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in
the variation between us and chimps. ii
Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the
result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific
reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil
record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows
that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any
evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence
of an "intelligent design".
Common Design, not Common Ancestory
But what does the genetic similarity between man and chimps - even as
95 % - mean? To answer that question, one has to look at the whole picture.
When we look at genetic comparisons in general, we find
surprising similarities which do not fit within the alleged evolutionary
relationships between species. For example a genetic analysis has revealed
a surprising 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.iii
According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata
phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were unrelated
to each other even 530 million years ago. Thus, the % 70 similarity -
a very high figure for humans and nematode worms, completely different
and dissimilar life forms - does not imply any evolutionary relationship.
On the other hand, the analyses carried on some proteins
show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried
out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial
vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken
were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile.
These results, along with many others, shows that genetic similarities
between man and animals, and animals themselves, do not fit in any evolutionary
pattern. In other words, the reason of similarity can not be "common
ancestory" as the theory of evolution suggests.
Then what is the reason? When we rethink the subject, we can see that
the similarities stem from the fact that all life forms have similar functions
and thus similar necessities. As we have explained in one of our previous
articles, "Darwinists Misrepresentations
About the Human Genome Project", it is surely reasonable
for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living
beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use
the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of
the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic
make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that
they evolved from a common ancestor.
But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for
similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question
was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world
of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who
first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these
structures as examples of "common design." In other words,
similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have
evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed
deliberately to perform a particular function.
Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in
living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is
not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities
is "common design," i.e. Creation.
(iii) New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27
(iv) New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19
COMPARISONS DEFY THE EVOLUTIONIST ASSUMPTIONS
In fact, none of the genetic similarities between different species
point to an evolutionary relationship. In recent years, scientific
discoveries have refuted many evolutionist assumptions. Comparisons
that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures
which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution
are actually totally distinct from each other. Molecular biologists
James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this
in an article in 1999:
…[S]cientists started analyzing
a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their
relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of
life derived from rRNA analysis alone. 1
Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those
of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution.
Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois,
admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning
in the face of molecular findings in this way:
No consistent organismal phylogeny
has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far
produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the
universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and
among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings
The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor
of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted
in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?"
published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi
states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by
Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of
life actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to
say that" new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":
A year ago, biologists looking over
newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought
these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early
history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes
then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's
major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional
eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even
more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they
could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When
full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes,
researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree.
But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire
Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville,
Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of
the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with
each other as well.... 3
Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree
of Life," Science, vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027
(2) Carl Woese, "The
Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
(3) Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is
It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no.
5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305