Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 11-15-2011 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 11/15/2011 7:37:50 AM PST by fishtank

DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry

by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Nov. 15, 2011

Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.1 Yet humans don't look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists' efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology.2

"Indels" refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.

Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the "substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species."1 McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:

Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.3

The team's analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not "junk DNA," and they are critical to the formation of each living creature.4 Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions [including indels]," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.5

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different!6 It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?

Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

References

Polavarapu, N. et al. 2011. Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation. Mobile DNA. 2 (1): 13.

Criswell, D. 2005. Genomics at ICR. Acts & Facts. 34 (7). "Junk DNA" Defines Differences Between Humans and Chimps. Georgia Tech news release, October 25, 2011.

Thomas, B. 2010. Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 16-17.

Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12. Genes comprise only 1.5 percent of the human "genome." See International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 409 (6822): 860-921.

Evolutionists say that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor six million years ago. Then, two million years ago, modern humans supposedly diverged from a (still unidentified) ape-like ancestor. The difference equals four million years. Further, 98 percent of the human genome's 2.9 billion DNA base pairs, roughly corresponding to its regulatory DNA, equals 2.8 billion base pairs. Therefore, evolution requires the belief that man emerged after 2.8 billion precisely placed DNA bases somehow appeared, and even more ape-specifying regulatory DNA disappeared, in only four million years, even though experiments have not found this kind of DNA appearance and disappearance in today's genomes.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: apes; creation; dna; humans
BEST QUOTE:

"In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees,.........."

1 posted on 11/15/2011 7:37:57 AM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This is a lie!!

2 posted on 11/15/2011 7:43:09 AM PST by cartan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: fishtank

The. Smartest guy I know looks like a cave man. Huge body, small head with sloped forehead. I would trust him with anything that needs figuring out. I often wonder, if scientists in the future would dig him up what they would think of humanity right now. Something like what some scientists think of old bones they have found already?


4 posted on 11/15/2011 7:52:19 AM PST by vpintheak (Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cartan
You are forgetting, that Humans were visitied long ago by aliens and bred to work inthe spice mines.


5 posted on 11/15/2011 7:54:01 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: null and void

A sprinkling of pit bull genes?


8 posted on 11/15/2011 8:08:33 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Salt vampire...


9 posted on 11/15/2011 8:12:54 AM PST by null and void (MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Ok


10 posted on 11/15/2011 8:22:59 AM PST by Paradox (The rich SHOULD be paying more taxes, and they WOULD, if they could make more money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Paradox

Knock knock.


12 posted on 11/15/2011 8:31:06 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.”

The headline makes no sense. If the actual genes that are expressed are 98% similar, that is very strong evidence of a close evolutionary relationship. The junk DNA doesnt code for anything so it is free to mutate without any negative consequences so of course it will have less similarity.


13 posted on 11/15/2011 8:33:07 AM PST by Hacklehead (The goal of political correctness is to hide the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

That dude’s hair gets bigger as the series goes on.


14 posted on 11/15/2011 8:33:50 AM PST by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“creation scientists”

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


15 posted on 11/15/2011 8:34:25 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor.

Is the author imposing a belief on those he's criticizing, or do evolutionary biologists actually argue that this is a "MUST HAVE" occurrence/conclustion, leaving nothing else as a possible explanation?

16 posted on 11/15/2011 8:39:20 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
(MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)

Awesome tag line. It's kind of funny in that my dad retired as a MSGT in the Air Force but was in the Navy in WWII and retired before Vietnam got hot, I think he regretted that. Sadly, they don't seem to make men like that anymore, men that didn't complain (besides the normal military b*tching)and did their duty.

Being born and growing up in a military family definitely gave me a unique perspective.

After seeing what Marines go through in basic, I am in awe of any Marine. That's not to say the other services have it easy, they certainly don't, I do wish I could remember the jokes my dad used to say about the current basic for Air Force (he transferred from the Navy and went to AF and didn't have to go to basic. I guess being part of 3 different D days counts for something).

Is that photo from Star Trek TOS?

17 posted on 11/15/2011 8:49:24 AM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lx
Thank you. He was a heck of a guy.

Is that photo from Star Trek TOS?

Yes, I posted it as a counterpoint to the Mooooschelle picture above it.

Apparently Mooooooschelle pictures aren't allowed on this thread.

18 posted on 11/15/2011 8:56:01 AM PST by null and void (MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
However, creation scientists

oh, nevermind...

19 posted on 11/15/2011 9:08:42 AM PST by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
"Biblical geneticist"

Really? I hadn't realized this was a specialty, or that the Bible was a text on genetics.

20 posted on 11/15/2011 9:13:41 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
Yes, it has long been known that non-genetic DNA is not as highly conserved between species as genetic DNA.

Creationists conflate the 99% genetic DNA similarity and the 95% or so similarity between genomic DNA, knowing the woeful lack of education on average of their target audience - they are pretty confident the dupes of their disinformation will not catch on.

They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is “regulatory” and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.

21 posted on 11/15/2011 9:14:34 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I am not thrilled with the way the georgia tech study is quoted and surrounded by creation scientist quotes.

I am willing to bet the findings of the scientists that actually performed the study differ significantly from those of the creation scientists.

-C L Emerson


22 posted on 11/15/2011 9:15:34 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Not true!!!

I know for a fact a cheeky Kenyan bastard running around the States is a direct descendent from chimps.


23 posted on 11/15/2011 10:03:46 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer) (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Really? I hadn't realized this was a specialty, or that the Bible was a text on genetics.
Genisis 30:

37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

That, Biblically, is how you breed colored sheep.
24 posted on 11/15/2011 10:19:17 AM PST by null and void (MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"Biblical geneticist"

Really? I hadn't realized this was a specialty, or that the Bible was a text on genetics.

Doncha recall how The Trickster Jacob used Biblical genetics and sticks to breed speckled goats?

25 posted on 11/15/2011 10:48:37 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Triple

That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.


26 posted on 11/15/2011 10:54:33 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Yep. I remember hearing a few years back that our DNA is closer to a cockroach’s DNA than to a monkey’s DNA. Well, now I understand Democrats.


27 posted on 11/15/2011 11:15:36 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Whoever you heard that from took you for a fool.


28 posted on 11/15/2011 12:12:52 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Where do the sticks come in as far as genetics?

Were they mutagenic sticks?/s

29 posted on 11/15/2011 12:13:50 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

“That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.”

I’ve seen similar distortions in 200 page EPA reports where the executive summary (the only thing anyone reads) draws one conclusion but the data in the rest of the document supports the opposite conclusion.


30 posted on 11/15/2011 1:33:06 PM PST by Hacklehead (The goal of political correctness is to hide the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson