Skip to comments.How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? )article)
Posted on 05/02/2013 7:45:45 AM PDT by fishtank
How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
In the past, evolutionists have tried to prove human evolution by comparing only similar DNA segments between humans and apesdisregarding the non-similar DNA regions.1 Many evolutionary studies have involved the selective use of protein-coding segments in the genome called genes. But comparing just the genes of humans and apes produces much higher DNA similarities than many other regions of the genome would yield.
Surprisingly, a recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.2 But what about the protein-coding genes? In humans, less than 3 percent of the genome is thought to contain actual protein-coding sequence, while the rest of the genome is involved in controlling how genes work and other aspects of chromosome function.3
Of the genes that are found in both species, evolutionists have only reported on the sub-segments of the genes that are similar. Because of these highly selective studies, we really dont know how similar human genes are to ape genes because non-similar data were discarded. Therefore, an extensive study is in progress at the Institute for Creation Research to compare a wide variety of primate gene data sets against a comprehensive database of known human gene variants.
So how does a scientist extract only the gene-based information from a genome? When protein-coding genes are active, they produce RNA copies of genes called transcripts or messenger RNAs (mRNA) that are used by the cell to make proteins. Using specialized techniques, these mRNAs can be captured and then sequenced. The mRNA sequences from one organism can then be compared to that of another to gauge how similar the genes are.
To create an exhaustive database of human genes, the DNA sequences of nearly nine million different human mRNA variants were downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) public database. Even though the human genome is thought to only contain about 22,000 genes, many different gene variants can be produced through a process called alternative splicing.4 After setting up the target human gene database, query data sets containing the gene sequences from a diversity of primates were also downloaded.
Although the study is just beginning, interesting patterns are beginning to emerge that challenge the standard evolutionary model of human origins. First, it looks as though all apes and monkeys contain significant portions of their genes that are very similar to parts of human genes. However, the primate genes also contain significant sections that are specific to their kind (e.g., chimp, gorilla, orangutan, etc.) that are not found in human genes.
While we are early in the research, the similarity in the statistics and patterns observed are not supportive of the standard Darwinian evolutionary dogma. Instead, the mosaic-type picture starting to emerge is that humans, along with each type of primate, were uniquely created after their kind. Because of similarities in physiology and overall general anatomical features between humans and primates, certain sections of programming code (DNA sequence) have been repeateda logical prediction for any type of engineered system. Stay tuned as more details of the study will be revealed in the next issues Research Column.
Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.
Tomkins, J. 2012. Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise. Acts & Facts. 41 (11): 11-13.
Tomkins, J. 2012. The Irreducibly Complex Genome: Designed from the Beginning. Acts & Facts. 41 (3): 6.
* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.
Cite this article: Tomkins, J. 2013. How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? Acts & Facts. 42 (5): 9.
Image from article.
Science in and of itself is a beautiful thing. But the history of science has always be clouded by the flat earthers, those who insist that only science that fits their narrow world view be studied. like Evolutionists.
When I was young, it was a big deal to work on a one meg memory bank for a computer. Now, with a lifetime of improvement we have memory banks that fit in your pocket that are big enough to write down the data contained in a single cell...
The design of creation is STUNNING.
Honestly, I don’t care if we had the exact same genes as an ape. The truth is that there is no ape that has ever painted a Mona Lisa, sculpted a David, programmed a computer, started a business, composed a song, or written a book. The evolutionist makes a mistake based on his/her assumption that commonality in genes is evidence of their theory. Rather than look at it as a common building block used by our Creator, they shoehorn it into their godless paradigm and proclaim the truth of their lie. No, only a fool believes that we are just a suped-up monkey.
Are these writers stupid, or do they assume their audience is?
Genes are a very small subset of DNA. Human and Chimpanzee genes are very very similar. Human and Chimpanzee genomes are less similar. Humans and Chimpanzees are more similar in genetic DNA than either is to a gorilla. Humans and Chimpanzees are more similar in their genomes than either is to a gorilla.
im with you A.T.
Michael Moore is the missing link.
A novice would be hard pressed to tell the difference between human DNA and the DNA of broccoli. This is an absurd argument that does nothing but cloud the issue. There simply no comparison with Human and animal when it comes to intelligence or self consciousness.
discounting similarity in DNA is like arguing humans do not have cells because an ameoba is a single cell organism.
similarity of DNA easily provides for similarity of structure in two arms, two legs, torso, head, heart, lungs, digestion, eyes, ears, etc.
I love your phrase “suped up monkey”.
What you’re observing in the “evolutionists’ mistake” is that they look at all evidence through the lens of the ASSUMPTION of evolution in order to say that the evidence supports their assumption.
Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.
"Twenty quatloos that the newcomer, within 5 posts, will claim Tomkins is not a real scientist."
Oh, yes, that’s another logic fallacy, called the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
“No real scientist denies evolution”.
So, of course he’s not a “real scientist”, if your definition includes a requirement for a belief system.
In addition assuming 98% similarity between man and chimp genes one look is all it takes to note the great difference.
The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist. It seems that creationist sources are aware of this and write to the appropriate education level of their audience.
There you have it origin of man in a nutshell ; )
Yes, in MOST cases...
some democrat congresscritters come to mind...
Of course, you have irrefutable proof of this. Please enlighten us.
“educated”, defined as “length of time immersed in a particular worldview”.
Of course, the more “educated” someone is, by the above definition, the more likely they are to adopt the worldview they’re immersed in.
Proves nothing except for an attempted “bullying”.
You get this all the time from the left - “all the smart people believe xyz”.
How dare you insult an ape by comparing them to members of congress. I demand an apology!
First they allege a conspiracy - apparently they think the sequences of genes are only published IF they are very similar to chimpanzees.
“First, it looks as though all apes and monkeys contain significant portions of their genes that are very similar to parts of human genes. However, the primate genes also contain significant sections that are specific to their kind (e.g., chimp, gorilla, orangutan, etc.) that are not found in human genes.”
This is the meat of their claim - for which they provide ZERO evidence.
So they make up a conspiracy theory - and then make an assertion backed up with NOTHING.
A comparative analysis of similarity in DNA, at either the gene, or genome level - will show that among the apes - humans and chimpanzees are the most similar. Both humans and chimpanzees are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
As far as species go - would you expect a mouse and a rat to be more similar or less similar to each other in DNA than a human and a chimpanzee are?
|Far left||Liberal||Middle of the Road||Conservative||Far right|
|Public, 4-year colleges||8.8%||47.1%||28.7%||14.7%||0.7%|
|Private, 4-year, nonsectarian||14.0%||54.6%||22.6%||8.6%||0.3%|
|Private, 4-year, Catholic||7.8%||48.0%||30.7%||13.3%||0.3%|
|Private, 4-year, other religious||7.4%||40.0%||29.1%||23.0%||0.6%|
What is your PhD in again? We never did get around to your own qualifications in that last thread.
The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist.
"One hundred quatloos the newcomer doesn't have a PhD."
Why, do you decide the truth of a statement by the qualifications of the person making it?
If so then evolution is almost certainly true by that criteria as there are very few biologists who do not accept the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
He’s heavily emotionally invested in denying creationism, though, for some reason.
Actually, there’s evidence in all those fields that show that long timelines are either not necessary or contradictory to observation.
Light from a star 100,000 light years away isn't evidence that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
DNA analysis shows overwhelming evidence for the common descent of species.
The evidence of the fossil record is not compatible with all species being alive contemporaneously.
But an a priori and emotional investment to useless creationism makes one unable to accept any evidence that contradicts. So, like the authors of this thread, one must allege a conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence.
I have an earned PhD in mechanical engineering from Texas A&M, and I am gainfully employed in my discipline.
All the creation scientists I know and/or quote have earned PhDs or MS degrees from established institutions.
I’ve said this before.
I don’t repeat it too often, only when necessary.
The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist.
I see your assumptions behind all your supposed refutations.
Wow. Only 29% of post graduates don’t believe God was involved with creation. So 71% of post graduates believe God was involved in the creation of the universe. That’s a very large majority of the smartest of the smart who believe in God being the source of all things. Interesting.
a) mice and rats are MORE similar to each other than a human and a chimp are in DNA.
b) mice and rats are LESS similar to each other than a human and a chimp are in DNA.
c) mice and rats are about the same amount of similarity to each other in DNA than a human and a chimp are similar to each other.
Without looking it up. What factor would you ascribe to your estimate (if answer a or b)? What would you base your estimate upon?
Do you think mice and rats belong to the same “kind” of animal?
Absolutely. Most scientists in America are (like myself) people of faith in God.
Despite this it seems that many creationists cannot make an argument against science without making it an argument against atheism.
Backed up with nothing? It is hard not to question your honesty as the sources cited are so hard to miss. The published research cited is freely available.
Materials, methods, sources, processes all documented.
“Although the study is just beginning, interesting patterns are beginning to emerge that challenge the standard evolutionary model of human origins. First, it looks as though all apes and monkeys contain significant portions of their genes that are very similar to parts of human genes. However, the primate genes also contain significant sections that are specific to their kind (e.g., chimp, gorilla, orangutan, etc.) that are not found in human genes.”
They make a claim that the data is still emerging. The genome wide comparison you referenced did NOT support this claim - that there were “significant sections that are specific to their kind” i.e. non human primates “that are not found in human genes”.
They allege a conspiracy theory - then make a claim - and back it up with nothing except that the study is just beginning but that “interesting patterns are beginning to emerge”.
No doubt the EXACT patterns they went in looking to find.
Understood fishtank ... I was really asking allmendream ... sorry for the confusion.
Oh, I know.
I was just supplying my own credentials....
.... as if that really matters when truth is on the line.
I mean, global warming MUST be true because James Hansen, “educated” NASA goofball, says so??
I agree that the claim of data supporting Biblical kinds was not documented, they seem to be indicating that they have more information to support this big claim coming in the next article. So your complaint about that is not unfounded. They need to produce the evidence.
However, I think they did support that the figures (National Geographic said it was 96% in 2005) commonly cited for similarity between humans and apes (or at least chimps) is inaccurate precisely because all of the data was not being disclosed. And now, being disclosed, it turns out the similarity is conservatively 75% or less — possibly far less. If true, that discrepency represents either a conspiracy or major blunder on the part of those who previously published the higher figure.
Do you accept that the similarity between men and chimps is far less than previously thought? If not, why? If so, what makes you convinced there is complete enough data to accuately say chimp and gorilla DNA are less similar?
A lot of confusion, intentional perhaps from some, is around the nature of the comparisons. Humans and chimps are around 98.5% similar in GENETIC DNA. The DNA in a genes (about 3% of the genome) is much more similar between species than non-genetic DNA - so it was expected that when comparing the similarity over the ENTIRE genome - this figure of similarity would go down. Yet Creationists, either not understanding the difference, or not caring to make the difference known to their audience, positively pounced on the new figure to say “LOOK - the amount of similarity has gone down!”. But what they were comparing had changed.
That is just one issue. Comparing genes is much more straightforward, comparing genomes is more complex - and how you want to “score” differences makes a big difference in the final number of similarity.
“twas the best of times twas the worst of times”
“it was the best of times it was the worst of times”
You can match these up like this...
and claim that they do not match up at all.
OR like this...
and see that they match up at around 95% of positions.
The chimp genome is (IIRC) around 8% larger than our own - if you want to take that figure right off the top - then humans and chimps can only match up at 92% - even if everything else is identical.
It is as if you had a second edition of a book and only 5% of it was different in the chapters that were the same - but an additional chapter (8% of the total) was added. Is the second edition 95% the same or 87% the same?
The authors of the comparison between the human and chimp genome were careful to outline their methodology by showing that they were comparing the genomes where they matched up - and they derived the figure of around 96%. Keep in mind that the comparison between human and chimp genetic DNA (genes) is STILL around 98.5%. The 96% GENOME figure did not lower the amount of GENETIC similarity.
So there are two reasons why I do not accept that the similarity between humans and chimps is lower than previously thought - the gene comparison figure is still there - despite the authors loony allegations of a conspiracy to not publish gene sequences that are not similar to chimpanzee sequences - AND the genome comparison was a comparison of sequences that DID match up.
As to why I say that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla - there are millions of data points to support it - at the level of GENETIC DNA humans and chimps are more similar in DNA - and at the GENOME level humans and chimps are more similar in DNA.
Similarly - using the same methods of comparison - humans chimps and gorillas are all more similar to each other than either is to an orangutan.
So if the authors accept monkeys and apes as the same Biblical “kind” - do you think they (or you) would accept mice and rats as the same Biblical “kind”?
Would you expect the differences between a mouse and a rat in DNA (utilizing the same methodology of comparison) to be more than, less than, or similar to - the differences between a human and a chimpanzee.
“So if the authors accept monkeys and apes as the same Biblical ‘kind’ - do you think they (or you) would accept mice and rats as the same Biblical ‘kind’?”
It would not be surprising to me that rats and mice fall into the same Biblical “kind”, but I am not aware of any successful scientific definition of “kind”. Species is easier to define because it is a functional description. That is, the concept of species existed before science began to understand genetics. It is certainly possible to combine DNA from different species even if they would never be able to mate in a trillion years. Of course that would not be natural selection, but it is still possible.
It seems that those who believe the Bible as absolute truth often feel the need to reconcile this belief with sientific observations, while those who do not believe so (even if just unconvinced) do not see such reconciliation as having much, if any, value to contribute to scientific progress. Among the believers are many who do not understand science, and many who do not necessarily understand the Bible in many cases either.
Those who published this article probably did so for what they see as a simplified way of defending the idea that genetic research does not necessarily lend strong support to the idea of common descent between man and apes. For the intended audience it simply means chimps and humans are less alike than they have heard from their professor or in the news.
You may not necessarily see the 98% similarity being published as propoganda, but that oversimplification of the data in places like National Geographic is no different than what you accuse these authors of doing, namely playing on the ignorance of their readers to promote an agenda.
Perhaps it is true that the researchers who came up with the 98% figure had no political, social or religious agenda; but that certainly did not keep others from using it as such. And there are unquestionably many who want to strip the religious liberties from this nation’s citizenry because they see these religious views as hindering their political agendas to promote fascism, lewdness, homosexuality, socialism, etc. For them, evolution is a useful wedge issue which can be used to undermine the power and influence of people of faith.
The authors here, right or wrong, probably sincerely believe they are promoting truth and freedom. The ones who use the media and govermental power to oppose freedom of faith care more about their own power and agenda than truth, whether found in science or otherwise.
The 98% figure is as true today as it was when published. It is a comparison of GENETIC DNA.
There is ten times as much difference in genomic DNA between a mouse and a rat as there is between a human and a chimpanzee. That is something you are unlikely to learn or expect listening to these creationist propagandists conspiracy theorists.