You’re not a monkey's uncle

[Michie]

Unsplash/Eugene Zhyvchik

A myth repeated so often in museums, textbooks, and nature documentaries that most people accept it as dogma is that humans and chimpanzees share 98% to 99% of our DNA. The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., for example, cites this statistic in its Human Origins exhibit as confirmation that “modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago.”

The only problem is the statistic is wrong, likely by an order of magnitude. Even more, the science community has known that it is wrong for a while now, and new methods of comparing the genomes of humans and great apes show just how genetically different the two are. In fact, the cited 1% to 2% difference hasn’t really been defensible in years.

As far back as 2007, authors in the journal Science called on fellow researchers to retire “the myth of 1%.” Geologist Casey Luskin explained, in a 2023 ID the Future podcast, that the estimate was derived decades ago from a single protein-to-protein comparison before the chimp genome was even fully sequenced. Since then, genetic science has become far more precise, and almost no modern comparisons between human and chimp genomes yield the famous 98% to 99% statistic.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/youre-not-a-monkeys-uncle/

 

[PloverWing]

The Science article, linked in the excerpt above (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.316.5833.1836) is interesting, talking about the difficulties of measuring the differences in the genomes of two species. (E.g.: if hundreds of genes have been lost since divergence from the common ancestor, with dozens of other genes added, and many genes relocated, how do you count all that?)

The Breakpoint article goes in an odd direction, however; they seem to be arguing that because of these measurement difficulties, evolution is false. I'll note that the Science article has a clear diagram portraying divergence from common ancestors, with counts of the genes gained and lost along the way.

 

[River Jordan]

Unsplash/Eugene Zhyvchik

A myth repeated so often in museums, textbooks, and nature documentaries that most people accept it as dogma is that humans and chimpanzees share 98% to 99% of our DNA. The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., for example, cites this statistic in its Human Origins exhibit as confirmation that “modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago.”

The only problem is the statistic is wrong, likely by an order of magnitude. Even more, the science community has known that it is wrong for a while now, and new methods of comparing the genomes of humans and great apes show just how genetically different the two are. In fact, the cited 1% to 2% difference hasn’t really been defensible in years.

As far back as 2007, authors in the journal Science called on fellow researchers to retire “the myth of 1%.” Geologist Casey Luskin explained, in a 2023 ID the Future podcast, that the estimate was derived decades ago from a single protein-to-protein comparison before the chimp genome was even fully sequenced. Since then, genetic science has become far more precise, and almost no modern comparisons between human and chimp genomes yield the famous 98% to 99% statistic.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/youre-not-a-monkeys-uncle/

It isn't the exact percentage that's important, it's 1) how the two are similar to each other relative to other species' genomes, and 2) the types of similarities humans share with other primates.

With #1, it's that no matter how you choose to compare genomes, the human and chimp genome are more similar to each other than either is to any other species. That means the most similar genome to chimps' is ours--not the gorilla's or any other primate, but ours.

With #2, it's that humans and chimps share a lot of genetic errors that only make sense if we both inherited them from a common ancestor. There's just no other reason for both of us to have the same genetic mistakes in the same places.

Scientists know what they're doing. They're not idiots and they're not evil conspirators plotting against anyone's religion.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is just another case of YEC misinformation. They confuse cladistics for something that can be defined by a single percentage relating two species. Rather than understanding that its not about the percentage, rather it's about phylogenies. And this has been the key issue now for creationists for decades, and time and time again they ignore the topic and plead ignorance. Just like they do with ancient isrealite cosmology in Genesis.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Unsplash/Eugene Zhyvchik

A myth repeated so often in museums, textbooks, and nature documentaries that most people accept it as dogma is that humans and chimpanzees share 98% to 99% of our DNA. The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., for example, cites this statistic in its Human Origins exhibit as confirmation that “modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago.”

The only problem is the statistic is wrong, likely by an order of magnitude. Even more, the science community has known that it is wrong for a while now, and new methods of comparing the genomes of humans and great apes show just how genetically different the two are. In fact, the cited 1% to 2% difference hasn’t really been defensible in years.

As far back as 2007, authors in the journal Science called on fellow researchers to retire “the myth of 1%.” Geologist Casey Luskin explained, in a 2023 ID the Future podcast, that the estimate was derived decades ago from a single protein-to-protein comparison before the chimp genome was even fully sequenced. Since then, genetic science has become far more precise, and almost no modern comparisons between human and chimp genomes yield the famous 98% to 99% statistic.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/youre-not-a-monkeys-uncle/

I suspect if you throw out all the "junk DNA" that percent may apply. Over millions of years and an untold number of viruses, mountains of useless, "dead" DNA are left hanging off our human DNA. Geneticists claim that 98% of human DNA appears to have no purpose whatsoever and attribute it to the remnants of past infections. They have even successfully isolated and reactivated some strands. I suspect primates all share this DNA, and therefore, they link primates and humans back to a common lineage. This is one reason I go with theistic evolution. If only 2% of our DNA describes our physical being, then it is not surprising that they come up with that 1-2% shared.

 

[Semper-Fi]

They confuse cladistics for something that can be defined by a single percentage relating two species.

Instead of 1 percent, it’s between 14 to 14.9 percent.

Since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides (that we know about) in
the human genome, a 14 percent difference in genomes between
species works out to a difference of 448 million nucleotides.

Scientists estimated that it took 50 to 60 genetic mutations per
generation for humans to evolve from an ape-like common
ancestor that lived about 240,000 generations ago.

Try Bridging a 448 million-nucleotide gap over a similar period would
require somewhere between 900 to 1,000 perfectly timed mutations
each generation. Such a rapid rate of mutation has never been
observed in humans or chimps and would likely be fatal.

These numbers reveal the absurdity of the evolutionary hypothesis.

New Research Overturns Claim that Humans and Chimps Differ by Only 1% in Their DNA

Seattle — For years, the public has been told that human beings and chimpanzees are, in genetic terms, only “1 percent” different. But according to Discovery Institute scientist Dr. Casey Luskin…

www.discovery.org

Complete sequencing of ape genomes - Nature

Complete sequences of chromosomes telomere-to-telomere from chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, Bornean orangutan, Sumatran orangutan and siamang provide a comprehensive and valuable resource for future evolutionary comparisons.

www.nature.com

As American zoologist Edwin Conklin said, “The probability of life originating from accident
is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion
in a printing factory.”

To think the wondrous complexity of even one gene, let alone an entire genome,
resulted from undirected mutations defies logic.

 

[Job 33:6]

Instead of 1 percent, it’s between 14 to 14.9 percent.

Since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides (that we know about) in
the human genome, a 14 percent difference in genomes between
species works out to a difference of 448 million nucleotides.

Scientists estimated that it took 50 to 60 genetic mutations per
generation for humans to evolve from an ape-like common
ancestor that lived about 240,000 generations ago.

Try Bridging a 448 million-nucleotide gap over a similar period would
require somewhere between 900 to 1,000 perfectly timed mutations
each generation. Such a rapid rate of mutation has never been
observed in humans or chimps and would likely be fatal.

These numbers reveal the absurdity of the evolutionary hypothesis.

New Research Overturns Claim that Humans and Chimps Differ by Only 1% in Their DNA

Seattle — For years, the public has been told that human beings and chimpanzees are, in genetic terms, only “1 percent” different. But according to Discovery Institute scientist Dr. Casey Luskin…

www.discovery.org

Complete sequencing of ape genomes - Nature

Complete sequences of chromosomes telomere-to-telomere from chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, Bornean orangutan, Sumatran orangutan and siamang provide a comprehensive and valuable resource for future evolutionary comparisons.

www.nature.com

As American zoologist Edwin Conklin said, “The probability of life originating from accident
is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion
in a printing factory.”

To think the wondrous complexity of even one gene, let alone an entire genome,
resulted from undirected mutations defies logic.

You're repeating the same long-debunked misunderstanding that creationists have been parroting for decades.

A few assumptions you are incorrectly making (which ultimately aren't relevant in the grand scheme of things anyway):

1. Your math assumes that all differences must stem from mutations of a single lineage, that is in people. Rather than considering the fact that the chimpanzee lineage also includes its own ongoing mutations. So you can cut your assumed numbers in half.

2. Another assumption you're making is that all differences are single nucleotide mutations, rather than mutations such as duplications, frame shifts, or indels. This means that tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of base pairs might change as a product of a single mutation. So after you cut your number in half, you can then divide your number by several thousand.

3. I could point out several other errors in your math, but more significantly is the fact that Evolution is supported by phylogenetics. That's the backbone of evolution. It doesn't matter, and never has mattered, whether the chimp to human difference was calculated at 99%, 98%, 95% or even 85% depending on how the calculation was done. Because at the end of the day, chimps always are, and will always be, closer related to us (or in the creationist view, more genetically similar to us) and we to them, mathematically, than either us or chimps are similar to any other ape of the animal kingdom. And that's a fact. And it will always be a fact, and it always has been a fact. You could do the math to get a 50% similarity between us and chimps and you would still end up with the same cladistics.

It's not like the 85% changes nested hierarchies. When you perform the analysis differently, the entire clade changes as well.

And creationists have been completely ignorant of this issue and haven't been able to address it for decades now. And they just keep repeating the same nonsense, year after year, every time one of these studies comes out.

 

[Semper-Fi]

You're repeating the same long-debunked misunderstanding that creationists have been parroting for decades.

The subject of the thread is the new discovery that show the evolutionary
hypothesis has been misleading for a while now without changing.

A myth repeated so often in museums, textbooks, and nature
documentaries that most people accept it as dogma is that
humans and chimpanzees share 98% to 99% of our DNA.

Will school books and other places that still claim this missleading
staticic be changed ? My guess is no, they still pedel many falsehoods.

It's past time to retire this “zombie science” myth that humans
and apes share 98 to 99 percent of our DNA. It’s been used for
too long to promote both outdated science and materialist
assumptions about what it means to be human.

A few assumptions you are incorrectly making (which ultimately aren't relevant in the grand scheme of things anyway):

Like the hypothetical common ancestor tree theory. The bible says
'that creatures reproduce after their kind, they did not evolve.

Phylogenetics uses similarities and differences of the characteristics
of species to [interpret] their evolutionary relationships and origins.

The biological similarity between humans and apes can just as easily
be explained as the mark of common design of a common creator.
We should expect living things to share similarities if they share a
design and an infinitely wise and creative Designer.

You go ahead and believe you are decent from the chimp kind, as for me
and my house, we are made after the God kind, in image and likeness.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Because at the end of the day, chimps always are, and will always be, closer related to us (or in the creationist view, more genetically similar to us) and we to them, mathematically, than either us or chimps are similar to any other ape of the animal kingdom. And that's a fact.

So just because chimps are similar in some ways is not proof we evolved from them.

We can talk about the same general brain, yet the difference in output is beyond evolution.

 

[David Lamb]

So just because chimps are similar in some ways is not proof we evolved from them.

We can talk about the same general brain, yet the difference in output is beyond evolution.

I agree. I am told that humans share 92-98% DNA with pigs, but even evolutionists don't (as far as I know) claim that humans are descended from pigs.

 

[Job 33:6]

"DNA similarity", which is of course more specific than just mere similarity, is the exact principle used in forensics to identify people and establish biological relationships. We use the same principal for DNA evidence in criminal cases, paternity tests, and genealogical ancestry (like 23andMe), and more. We use DNA tests all the time to determine familial relationships for everyday purposes.

Creationists are comfortable with using DNA tests and looking at DNA similarity, paternity tests and determining family trees among people. But then as soon as those same DNA tests point towards relatedness to species of the animal kingdom, they quickly change their position. Not based on the data, but based on their theological concerns.

This is known as "confirmation bias".

It happens when someone accepts a method or standard of evidence in one context, but then rejects that same method when it leads to a conclusion they don’t like. For example, saying nodes and phylogenies are fine when DNA is used to identify people in a criminal case, but not fine when the same logic is applied to understand the relatedness between a frog and a toad, simply because they seem “too different”, isn’t an argument based on evidence. It’s a reaction based on discomfort with the conclusion.

Where evolution takes a different turn from creationism is in how the similarities form nested hierarchies. The more closely related two species are, the more DNA they share, not just in function but in errors, repurposed genes, pseudogenes, and non-coding sequences. For example, humans and chimps share their DNA, including shared mutations at the same points in pseudogenes, which don't produce proteins but persist as genomic fossils. We share fewer with mice, fewer still with chickens, and even fewer with bananas, but the similarities are still there, just progressively smaller and nested.

That’s where the concept of common ancestry becomes more than just a guess. It’s not just that we share some DNA, it’s how we share it, how the patterns map onto the fossil record, and how genetic and anatomical relationships mirror each other.

When creationists suggest that a designer might use the same code to build different creatures (often referred to as the pseudoscience baraminology) that's philosophically reasonable. But scientifically, the evolutionary model gains its strength from the predictability and precision of these patterns. It explains why we find certain features in specific lineages and why the genetic tree of life built from DNA matches the one built from fossils, embryology, and morphology.

So when DNA testing is applied within a group (say, among mammals), yes, it finds close familial relationships (just like when people use DNA texts to learn about their family, or through paternity tests). But even when applied across groups (say, between mammals and reptiles), it still finds gradual, patterned divergence, not abrupt distinctions. That’s the surprising thing. The distinctions are there, but they’re quantitative, not absolute, and they match up with evolutionary expectations.

In short, the data doesn't just show similarity, it shows hierarchical, historically layered similarity, which is hard to explain by design alone but naturally flows from descent with modification.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree. I am told that humans share 92-98% DNA with pigs, but even evolutionists don't (as far as I know) claim that humans are descended from pigs.

On a disturbing note, I have read that among cannibals of the South Pacific, human meat is euphemistically referred to as coming from the “long pig” due to a supposed similarity to pork in flavor.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Science article, linked in the excerpt above (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.316.5833.1836) is interesting, talking about the difficulties of measuring the differences in the genomes of two species. (E.g.: if hundreds of genes have been lost since divergence from the common ancestor, with dozens of other genes added, and many genes relocated, how do you count all that?)

The Breakpoint article goes in an odd direction, however; they seem to be arguing that because of these measurement difficulties, evolution is false. I'll note that the Science article has a clear diagram portraying divergence from common ancestors, with counts of the genes gained and lost along the way.

View attachment 366723

One does not have to deny evolution to accept that overstating the similarities between humans and chimpanzees has been used as an attack vector against the human religion, specifically by undermining the uniqueness of humans, who do share much in common with other animals, but alone are capable of sin (several Orthodox monastic saints have insisted for example that all cats are perfectly Orthodox Christian and thus sinless, and a common feature of Orthodox monasteries is having as many cats as it is legally or practically possible to support; Mount Athos is a paradise for cats).

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Concerning the "monkey's uncle" emotional poke, as it would seem to seek to tempt the ego. Who wants to be the son of a monkey?
Yet on the other hand, we know Adam was crafted from clay, dirt, mud, ashes. Is being a dirtbag any better than being an ape baby? Appealing to such emotional and ego-pricking tactics is not conducive to reaching the truth and understanding. Even the Psalmist invoked the humiliation of human composition, and pleaded with God to remember "we are but dirt." (ashes, mud, even rubbish)

Psalms 103:14 KJV
14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.


עָפָר
‛âphâr
aw-fawr'
From H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish.



(Rubbish - Neh_4:2, Neh_4:10)


The modern Kinky psalmist writes:

I think I'm sophisticated
'Cause I'm living my life
Like a good homo sapiens
But all around me
Everybody's multiplying
And they're walking round like flies, man
So I'm no better than the animals
Sitting in the cages in the zoo, man
'Cause compared to the flowers
And the birds and the trees
I am an apeman
I think I'm so educated
And I'm so civilized
'Cause I'm a strict vegetarian
And with the over population
And inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an apeman

I'm an apeman
I'm an ape, apeman
Oh, I'm an apeman
I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man
Oh, I'm an apeman

'Cause compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an apeman
Laa la la la la la la
In man's evolution
He's created the city
And the motor traffic rumble
But give me half a chance
And I'd be taking off my clothes
And living in the jungle
'Cause the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury
To be like an apeman

I'm an apeman
I'm an ape, apeman
Oh, I'm an apeman
I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man
Oh, I'm an apeman

I look out the window
But I can't see the sky
The air pollution is a-fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an apeman
La la la la la la la
Come on and love me
Be my apeman girl
And we'd be so happy
In my apeman world

I'm an apeman
I'm an ape, apeman
Oh, I'm an apeman
I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man
Oh, I'm an apeman

I'll be your Tarzan and you'll be my Jane
I'll keep you warm and you'll keep me sane
We'll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an apeman

I'm an apeman
I'm an ape, apeman
Oh, I'm an apeman
I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man
Oh, I'm an apeman

I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an apeman

 

[River Jordan]

Try Bridging a 448 million-nucleotide gap over a similar period would
require somewhere between 900 to 1,000 perfectly timed mutations
each generation. Such a rapid rate of mutation has never been
observed in humans or chimps and would likely be fatal.

These numbers reveal the absurdity of the evolutionary hypothesis.

In addition to the other errors Job identified, the main one you're making is your math is based on the erroneous assumption that the modern human genome evolved from the modern chimp genome.

That's fundamentally wrong. If you're going to argue against science, at least get the basics right.

 

[River Jordan]

The subject of the thread is the new discovery that show the evolutionary
hypothesis has been misleading for a while now without changing.

No, you're just not understanding the science. I tried to explain some of the basics in my first post in this thread but I guess you missed it or ignored it.

But I wonder, do you really think you know genetics better than geneticists? Do you think you've uncovered some sort of conspiracy, or maybe you think you've exposed that geneticists actually don't know what they're doing?

 

[Job 33:6]

One other issue in this thread is that creationists never consider the easiest position. That the Bible isn't a science textbook and that God could use evolution to create life. They'd rather invoke global conspiracies and avoid honest approaches to science. They read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 about windows opening and closing in the sky to release the waters above and they never stop to think "hey, I wonder if this describes ancient Israelite cosmology and not modern science?". They can't fathom the possibility that it may be incorrect to interpret Genesis "literally".

They'll also say "well Adam was made of dust so I guess that's literal too, like a body just sprouting up out of the dirt like magic".

But then when Abraham refers to himself as dust just a few chapters later (Genesis 18:27)..."oh well that's just poetry".

Genesis 18:27 ESV
[27] Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

Psalm 103:14 ESV
[14] For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

Job 10:9 NASB1995
[9] Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again?

Ecclesiastes 3:20 NASB1995
[20] All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.

1 Corinthians 15:48-49 ESV
[48] As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Poetry, poetry, poetry, poetry, poetry...

A talking snake tricks a woman made out of a rib into eating a mysterious and supernatural fruit from a "tree of wisdom", who then turns and tricks a man (who's Hebrew name means "humanity") into eating this same "wisdom fruit", neglecting fruit from the "tree of life" and from eating a "life fruit", and that man happens to be made out of dust...

Wait wait! That last part is literal!

And then everyone is surprised when the secular world laughs at us. Guys, literalism isn't the only option for a truthful genre. There are other ways to defend scripture that don't involve global conspiracies and denial of reality.

And it begins with A. Acknowledging that the theory of evolution is nearly 200 years old and is more robust today than any other point of history. And B. The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[Semper-Fi]

They'll also say "well Adam was made of dust so I guess that's literal too, like a body just sprouting up out of the dirt like magic".

Ye of little faith.

The 59 elements found in the human body are all found [on the earth's crust].
This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific
composition of a human body. God formed the clay/dust, it did not just sprout.

Eve was made from Adams rib bone; science has found this one bone that can
regenerate and regrow. All the things needed to make Eve was in the rib bone,
God only had to change xx or yy s.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[sfs]

Instead of 1 percent, it’s between 14 to 14.9 percent.

What's 'it' here? Those numbers are both correct -- they measure different things.

Since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides (that we know about) in
the human genome, a 14 percent difference in genomes between
species works out to a difference of 448 million nucleotides.

Scientists estimated that it took 50 to 60 genetic mutations per
generation for humans to evolve from an ape-like common
ancestor that lived about 240,000 generations ago.

Try Bridging a 448 million-nucleotide gap over a similar period would
require somewhere between 900 to 1,000 perfectly timed mutations
each generation. Such a rapid rate of mutation has never been
observed in humans or chimps and would likely be fatal.

Sorry, but you don't understand the science here. Scientists estimate that it took 50 to 60 single-base substitutions per generation for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from our common ancestor, which is in fact about how many such mutations occur per generation. We make that estimate because our genomes do in fact differ from chimp genomes by about 1 single-base substitution per 100 bases, just human genomes differ from one another by about 1 single-base substitution per 1000 bases.

Human and chimp genomes also differ from one another by small insertions and deletions -- about one seventh as many differences as single-base substitutions. Since each difference includes more than a single base (on average), the total amount of sequence that differs is larger than the total difference caused by single-base substitutions. And once again, the human-chimp difference is consistent with what we would expect, based on the observed number of small insertion and deletion mutations in humans.

Human and chimp genomes also differ from one another by large structural changes: duplications or (less commonly) deletions of large sections of sequence in a single mutation, or the flipping of a big chunk of sequence in a single event. These are far more rare than substitutions, but they account for a lot more sequence. And once again, when we look just at the differences between human genomes, we find these kinds of differences to be much more rare, but to involve a lot more sequence than single-base substitutions.

Nothing in recent studies of human and ape genomes has provided even the tiniest whiff of evidence against the long-standing scientific conclusion that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand the data or is lying to you.

The biological similarity between humans and apes can just as easily
be explained as the mark of common design of a common creator.
We should expect living things to share similarities if they share a
design and an infinitely wise and creative Designer.

A common designer really doesn't explain the actual patterns we see when we compare genomes.