Christians, does the FACT that Humans and Chimps share Nearly IDENTICAL DNA?

Question

98.8%???? Does that tell you NOTHING!?!??!

Answer 1

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.

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).

If 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.

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 popularised 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.

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 encyclopaedia 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!

Answer 2

Sharing 99 percent of genes doesn't make two species 99 percent similar; different genes code for different things and some are much more significant than others, and don't forget how many individual genes there are. Even one percent has the potential to change everything, such as the difference between, as you said, humans and mice. I don't know anything about the shared genes, but I'm guessing they're the fundamental genes that make up all mammalian life. In regards to your second question, evolution works by branching off from basic life. Birds branched from dinosaurs, which is evident in their similar skeletal structure and their feathers, which we now many dinosaurs had. Dinosaurs, contrary to popular belief, were birds and not reptiles. Mice, apes and humans are mammals. Like I said, I don't know anything, but just imagine all these species as being different leaves on different branches, separate, but coming from the same place and some are more near to each other than others. Hope this helped :)

Answer 3

Can you explain where the DNA came from? DNA is essential for life to exist and can only be produced by life. How, when no life existed, did DNA come into existence?

Also, a few years ago there was a Time magazine article titled "Mother Eve". DNA samplings were taken of a cross section of women worldwide from all major ethnic classification. The test showed the DNA characteristics of ALL the women tested went back to ONE single woman.

Answer 4

Does a human look anything or act anything like a chimp? That only tells me that DNA likeness doesnt say much at all.

We unlike animals are created in the image of God and the image of God is more a matter of our souls, not necessarily our physical characteristics or DNA. Mankind is unique from animals in that we have things like developed societies, history, culture, art, justice, morality, technology, science, philosophy, transcendence of environment, a sense of self-awareness, and most importantly; religion and knowledge of God.

Just because we have similairites to some animals doesnt mean we had a common ancestory.

Answer 5

It tells me that chimps are 98.8% DNA related to humans. Moreover, it also tells me that the DNA is NOT 100%. God is the Creator of all.

Answer 6

That tells me that Humans and Chimps have 98.8% of their DNA as Identical.

Answer 7

Did you know that human DNA matches to 50 percent of a banana?

I don't see anyone with banana peels for legs do you?

Answer 8

Yes, that we share a common evolutionary ancestor.

DNA is great isn't it? Also refutes the rationality of racism as any two homo sapiens picked at random share 99.9%.

Answer 9

Yea so what. Did you know We share 60% of our DNA with bananas.

Answer 10

We contain about the same percentage water as a watermelon. That tells me the same thing as the DNA statistic.