Creationists, do you think that it is a Coincidence that Chimps and Humans share 98.8% of the same DNA?

Question

Obviously, your answer can not be "Same creator!!" because then you are saying that all the other animals were created by someone else.

Gosh darn it will you people actually read what I've written under my questions? :(

Answer 1

I think close enough only counts in Horse Shoes, Hand Grenades and Atom Bombs.

If YOU want to think your granny was a CHIMP so be it.

I come from FAR better stock than that!

Answer 2

What do you mean? If it cannot be said that these similarities are due to one Creator then the same can be said of a common ancestor... How does a similarity argue against a single Creator? If every creature here had no similarities then we would logically conclude that we were created by many Creators. Besides, the claim that DNA is 98% identical isn't exactly true. The DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides and the names are abbreviated as C,G,A and T. These nucleotides are then grouped together to form complex structures that are read by a translation system to determine which of the 20 amino acids are to be incorporated into a protein/s. We have at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides and no scientists has ever come close to comparing ALL these sequences so that a proper comparison is made. All in all, more research is needed.

Answer 3

May the peace, blessing and mercy of God be upon you

I am a science student in University, so I have some more comprehensive knowledge then some other people in this category.

The Human Genome has been mapped to be more than 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides. Of which only 1.5% are coding sequences that actually code for any proteins, RNA etc.. (40%+ has to do with repetive transposable elements...)

Now if we say 98.8% similarity (I'll be gracious I have 95-99% in the scientific literature), we are saying 1.2% difference. a 1.2% difference over 3 billion base pairs means,
3x10^9 * .012 = 36 000 000

36 000 000 (thats 36 million base pair difference). Now I ask you, ok we can say mutations occur due to what ever reason, environmental reasons (x-rays, radiation, because I am really sure the chimps were building nuclear reactors or experimenting with medical imaging technology but ill be gracious and say some cosmic rays penetrated and caused some mutation), the DNA polymerase making a mistake every so often.

But what is the probability that 36 000 000 base pair mutations (whether insertions deletions or mismatches or what not) arose from random chance that led to a beneficial change?

Let see, (usually 1 mutation can cause either a missense ( a different amino acid), or nonsense (a stop codon) in the mRNA transcript of which it codes for, means that it won't do it required function and thus have an adverse affect. Vary, rarely would ONE mutation arise which was silenced due to the wobble effect of the tRNA base pairing with the codon sequence of the same amino acid.

So let's be gracious and say 1 and 100 000 thousand mutations led to a beneficial change in protein function. So now we have 36 000 000 base pair difference, with an grossly exageratted 1/ 100 000 chance that a mutation is benificial. Thus 36 000 000 * 100 000 = 3.6 X 10^12 is a very gracious estimate of the probability that all those mutations occurred by chance and were beneficial.

God-Willing when I have enough knowledge to write a book on this subject I will source studies done on the drosphilia and other model organisms show the true beneficial mutation rate. Which I predict to be in the 1 / 100 000 000+ range

The difference is clear enough to show me that God, did intelligently design all of us, that is ALL living creatures.

Please, all life was created by God alone, and to him we will return. You will see one day.

Peace Be With You

- First Year Muslim Science Student

[010:036] And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Knower of what they do.

Answer 4

The odd thing is that most creationists would not have difficulty with DNA evidence in a forensic setting establishing paternity or the identity of the suspect yet they cloud the evidence which supports that we share a common ancestry with a chimp as well as other more primitive organisms. Other posting are purely ignorant of DNA evidence or are specious and misrepresent this science. Clearly this shows the chimp to be our most closely surviving relative with us sharing a common ancestor.

Answer 5

I don't think the chimp genome has been sequenced comprehensively enough to give a figure with that accuracy. The estimates I have seen range from 94 per cent to 99 per cent.

However, enough has been sequenced to show that the common chimpanzee and the pygmy chimpanzee are humans' closest living relatives (and vice versa - chimps' closest relatives are first of all the other chimp species, followed by humans, and only then followed by the other great apes).

Answer 6

Can we be honest? It seems you asked a question you wanted to insult others beliefs with, but you missed a really good answer that could have been interesting.

Human beings are not supposed to have descended from chimps, rather hominids (including humans) and modern apes are supposed to have come from a common ancestor which is now extinct.

The interesting question is why do humans and chimps share so much DNA in common, when they are not supposed to have any more common ancestors than humans and orangatangs or gorillas?

SO maybe the amount of common DNA, which has no reason to be there by normal theory, can be explained by the Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic tradition that certain sinners were turned into apes by G-d. I think they've actually found bones of people in transition, no?

Or forget what I say and check out the answer of our Muslim science student friend below me.

Answer 7

The bible states the humans were created 10,000 years ago, however, we all know it was earlier than that. Lucy was discovered in 1974 by anthropologist Professor Donald Johanson in a maze of ravines at Hadar in northern Ethiopia. He immediately recognised it as belonging to a hominid. As they looked up the slope, they saw more bone fragments: ribs, vertebrae, thighbones and a partial jawbone.

They eventually unearthed 47 bones of a skeleton - nearly 40% of a hominid, or humanlike creature, that lived around 3.2 million years ago.

Like a chimpanzee, Lucy had a small brain, long, dangly arms, short legs and a cone-shaped thorax with a large belly. But the structure of her knee and pelvis show that she routinely walked upright on two legs, like us.

Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Genetic studies show humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that lived in the African rainforest 7-8 million years ago. The descendants of this common ancestor split into two lineages -one that led to chimps and another that led to us.

It is thought that the human lineage developed routine bipedalism as a strategy for living on the ground when climate change decimated the forest, leaving wide belts of open terrain with no trees.

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).

The difference measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are 29 percent identical. If you measure nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regions, humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical. The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA melting temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the genomes that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elements removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, however, as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the bonobo, sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other species.

For further information click the link below.

Answer 8

A sea urchin has about 70% human counterpart genes whereas a fruit fly only has 40%. The relevance of this is in how sea urchins combat attack against foreign bacteria and disease compared to humans who have an acquired immune system. Our shared genes means that sea urchins could contain a solution for scientists create new drugs for humans to combat disease. Sea urchins have the genetic coding for many human ailments and disease, including muscular distrophy and huntingtons disease.

Answer 9

the challenge-loose chimpanzee's closest relative is the Bonobo (in many situations referred to because of the fact the "pygmy chimpanzee"). His equivalent 0.33 and fourth closest are the two species of gorilla. His 5th closest is the Orang Utang. Can everyone guess which species is the challenge-loose chimp's 2d closest relative? hint: starts with "H".

Answer 10

We are made of the same stuff. The couple % difference is huge. We can fill up many books with that.

I believe the Bible record of the creations because it is my God's eyewitness account about what happened in the beginning.