Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution. This falsely implied that a COMPLETE genome of both was compared. This is a false claim on so many levels:
1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.
2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.
3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.
4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?
5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.
Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:
1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.
2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.
3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
"...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:
"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)
For more info:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40441/title/Human-Gene-Set-Shrinks-Again/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/fresh-look-human-chimp-dna-similarity/
1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.
2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.
3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.
4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?
5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.
Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:
1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.
2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.
3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
"...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:
"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)
For more info:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40441/title/Human-Gene-Set-Shrinks-Again/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/fresh-look-human-chimp-dna-similarity/
