How Similar Are Human and Ape Genes? )article)

In the past, evolutionists have tried to prove human evolution by comparing only similar DNA segments between humans and apes—disregarding 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 don’t 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 repeated—a logical prediction for any type of engineered system. Stay tuned as more details of the study will be revealed in the next issue’s 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.

I was making reference to this...

“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.

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?

Exactly what I said - they need to produce the evidence - they alleged a conspiracy theory - made a claim and backed it up with nothing.

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...

twasthebestoftimestwastheworstoftimes
itwasthebestoftimesitwastheworstoftimes

and claim that they do not match up at all.

OR like this...

*twasthebestoftimes*twastheworstoftimes
itwasthebestoftimesitwastheworstoftimes

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.

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.