Skip to comments.Chimp genome sequence very different from man (Sequencing shows we are not 98% identical)
Posted on 09/06/2005 6:49:09 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
September 5, 2005
For many years, evolutionary scientists -- and science museums and zoos -- have hailed the chimpanzee as our closest living relative and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.1 However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.
Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.2 No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it the most dramatic confirmation yet of Darwins theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.3
So what is this great and overwhelming proof of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.
Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesnt sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called insertions or deletions because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.
To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations -- a problem referred to as Haldanes dilemma. This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.
Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.
It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.
Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimers disease. Dr. DeWitt was a featured speaker at Julys Creation Mega Conference where one of his presentations was titled Image of God or Planet of Apes. This talk, which will soon be available on DVD, deals with molecular and anatomical distinctions between man and the apes.
So how different is the genome secquence of dust?
Good article Dave, bump.
Why don't you gather the dust under your own bed, do a genome sequence study and get back to us with your findings.
Any reasonably competent scientist should be able to recognize the study's limits and predict the outcome of such a study as well. On the other hand an evolutionist such as yourself, given your materialist's premise, will look at the data from the dust samples and assume incorrectly -- as it appears from the premise of your question you do -- that either a potential for a genome sequence never existed in what elements remain in the dust, or that mankind must have evolved from primordial digestive juices of dust mites.
Admittedly its not good scientific thought but then again neither is much materialistic thought whenever it is applied in the context of a real scientific discussion.
The bible predicts the outcome of the experiment: "...dust you are and unto dust you shall return. (Genesis 3:19)
Materialists are too often surprised by what is so obvious to those who are already sufficiently and credibly informed.
Well that one crossed my eyes. I had to slow down my reading.
I did find it very interesting.
Yet another Evolution myth Debunked Bump.
Had lunch a couple of weeks ago...he is a brilliant scientist.
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says.Hmmm ... this guy is inventing 'breeds' (i.e., 'creationaists'); for years the debate was whether or not the evolutionary process was the one that got us here, as there is no serious argument that we are indeed here. The other side of the coin (to evolution) was changelessness, but, with the flood of 'lesser faiths' making their primitive voices heard this issue of 'creationism' was manufactured to give light to an 'intermediate' (developing, as in progressing, as kind of like the reformation) viewpoint. One day, maybe, they will become enlightened to see the whole picture instead of just a small part ...
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., director, Center for Creation StudiesI wonder, is DeWitt in denial about nature having a propensity for desiring compound formation in certain regular, repeatable patterns?
Just a general question.
Extrapolating that 'up a bit', so too nature would have a propensity for creating biological organisms along certain predictable, and common forms or types, given enough time.
Does he deny ANY type of change is possible in organisms given changes in environmental changes (temps, location, etc)?
Furthermore, does he deny any reflection in the offspring that those organisms might have, you know, dominant genes vesus recessive gene allowing certain offspring to have built-in advantages on living and chasing prey or hiding from enemies?
Just curious ...
Human Ancestors Went Out Of Africa And Then Came Back... 
ScienceDaily | Friday, August 7, 1998 | adapted from New York University materials
Posted on 12/17/2007 8:37:11 PM EST by SunkenCiv
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.