WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND
APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR
AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION
NOT TRUE?
MANY evolutionist sources from time to
time carry the claim that humans and apes
share 99 percent of their genetic
information and that this is proof of
evolution. This evolutionist claim focuses
particularly on chimpanzees, and says that
this creature is the closest monkey to man,
for which reason there is a kinship between
the two. However, this is a false proof put
forward by evolutionists who take
advantage of the layman's lack of
information on these subjects.
99% similarity claim is misleading
propaganda
For a very long time, the evolutionist choir
had 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 identical 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 study in October 2002 revealed 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," it reads:
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.25
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.26
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."
Human DNA is also similar to that of the
worm, mosquito, and chicken!
Moreover, the above-mentioned basic
proteins are common vital molecules
present, not just in chimpanzees, but also
in very many completely different living
creatures. The structure of the proteins in
all these species is very similar to that of
the proteins present in humans.
For example, the genetic analyses
published in New Scientist have revealed a
75% similarity between the DNA of
nematode worms and man.27 This
definitely does not mean that there is only
a 25% difference between man and these
worms!
On the other hand, in another finding which
also appeared in the media, it was stated
that the comparisons carried out between
the genes of fruit flies belonging to the
Drosophila genus and human genes yielded
a similarity of 60%.28
When living things other than man are
studied, it appears that there is no
molecular relationship such as that claimed
by evolutionists.29 This fact shows that
the concept of similarity is not evidence for
evolution.
"Common design": The reason for
similarities
It is surely natural 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 their genetic make-ups,
would resemble one another. This,
however, is not evidence that they evolved
from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is the result not of
evolution but of "common design," that is,
of their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this matter with an
example: all construction in the world is
done with similar materials (brick, iron,
cement, etc.). This, however, does not
mean that these buildings "evolved" from
each other. They are constructed
separately by using common materials. The
same holds for living beings as well.
However, the complexity of the structure of
living things cannot be compared to that of
bridges, of course.
Life did not originate as the result of
unconscious coincidences as evolution
claims, but as the result of the creation of
God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite
knowledge and wisdom.
http://www.harunyahya.com