Human/chimp genomic similarity drops to ~85%: for real this time?

[Aggie]

Anybody remember me? I was a regular on this forum from 2004 until 2018, after which I mostly moved on to other things. I don't plan on becoming a regular here again, but I'm back for the time being to ask about a recent piece of evolutionary anthropology news.

https://x.com/OriginsUnveiled/status/1964040999468224774

According to this analysis, when the human and chimpanzee genomes are compared while including portions that hadn't previously been sequenced, their similarity drops from the commonly given 98% value to 84.7%. On the surface this seems valid, and the conclusion has been accepted by Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist who is qualified to evaluate it. Jerry Coyne's post from yesterday is what brought this analysis to my attention.

But there is something odd about this conclusion: it's virtually identical to an argument made in 2012 by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins in the Journal of Creation. Bergman and Tomkins' 2012 argument was that when human and chimpanzee genomes are compared using data typically omitted from these comparisons, the percentage similarity drops to somewhere in the 81-87 percent range. Either the recent analysis by "Origins Unveiled" is an example of a major creationist claim being vindicated by mainstream evolutionary anthropology, or it's a very clever false flag operation by a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent, which was convincing enough for even Jerry Coyne to be fooled.

Looking more closely, I've noticed a few other possible red flags. First, the argument made by "Origins Unveiled" (and accepted by Jerry Coyne) is based on a paper published in Nature on April 9th. The exact same argument made by "Origins Unveiled"—that this paper shows the creationist figure of 81-87% to be correct—was previously made six months ago by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. And second, "Origins Unveiled" is a relatively new Twitter account (registered in 2024) without any identifying information, aside from that they were a were considering a Ph.D in evolutionary anthropology until they quit due to "the rampant political correctness I witnessed among professors and students in potential university programs". Some of the account's other posts include accurate summaries of evolutionary anthropology concepts, but a fair number of creationists have legitimate PhDs and have published mainstream biology or geoscience research, so the ability to accurately explain these concepts doesn't prove the account's provenance either way.

I would like some help evaluating whether the "Origins Unveiled" Twitter account is for real, and whether it's a coincidence that they've reached the same conclusion as Luskin (and also previously Bergman and Tomkins), or whether this Twitter account is being operated someone associated with the Discovery Institute who's posing as an evolutionary anthropologist. I suppose it's also possible that this account belongs to a creationist or ID proponent but that the substance of their argument is still correct. I'm aware of one other case where a creationist objection (not to the theory evolution itself, but to the way it's been presented in textbooks) turned out to be valid.

 

[MarcusGregor]

Scientific research is not published on Twitter. Find the original peer-reveiwed research from a reputable journal (thinking you might have trouble with that ).

Also, the percentage isn't really all that important. It can vary depending on what is being compared between the genomes. What actually matters is the relative differences and patterns observed that match exactly what would be expected from common descent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Anybody remember me? I was a regular on this forum from 2004 until 2018, after which I mostly moved on to other things. I don't plan on

I have some recollection of you, but that was a long time ago.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anybody remember me? I was a regular on this forum from 2004 until 2018, after which I mostly moved on to other things. I don't plan on becoming a regular here again, but I'm back for the time being to ask about a recent piece of evolutionary anthropology news.

https://x.com/OriginsUnveiled/status/1964040999468224774

According to this analysis, when the human and chimpanzee genomes are compared while including portions that hadn't previously been sequenced, their similarity drops from the commonly given 98% value to 84.7%. On the surface this seems valid, and the conclusion has been accepted by Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist who is qualified to evaluate it. Jerry Coyne's post from yesterday is what brought this analysis to my attention.

But there is something odd about this conclusion: it's virtually identical to an argument made in 2012 by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins in the Journal of Creation. Bergman and Tomkins' 2012 argument was that when human and chimpanzee genomes are compared using data typically omitted from these comparisons, the percentage similarity drops to somewhere in the 81-87 percent range. Either the recent analysis by "Origins Unveiled" is an example of a major creationist claim being vindicated by mainstream evolutionary anthropology, or it's a very clever false flag operation by a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent, which was convincing enough for even Jerry Coyne to be fooled.

Looking more closely, I've noticed a few other possible red flags. First, the argument made by "Origins Unveiled" (and accepted by Jerry Coyne) is based on a paper published in Nature on April 9th. The exact same argument made by "Origins Unveiled"—that this paper shows the creationist figure of 81-87% to be correct—was previously made six months ago by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. And second, "Origins Unveiled" is a relatively new Twitter account (registered in 2024) without any identifying information, aside from that they were a were considering a Ph.D in evolutionary anthropology until they quit due to "the rampant political correctness I witnessed among professors and students in potential university programs". Some of the account's other posts include accurate summaries of evolutionary anthropology concepts, but a fair number of creationists have legitimate PhDs and have published mainstream biology or geoscience research, so the ability to accurately explain these concepts doesn't prove the account's provenance either way.

I would like some help evaluating whether the "Origins Unveiled" Twitter account is for real, and whether it's a coincidence that they've reached the same conclusion as Luskin (and also previously Bergman and Tomkins), or whether this Twitter account is being operated someone associated with the Discovery Institute who's posing as an evolutionary anthropologist. I suppose it's also possible that this account belongs to a creationist or ID proponent but that the substance of their argument is still correct. I'm aware of one other case where a creationist objection (not to the theory evolution itself, but to the way it's been presented in textbooks) turned out to be valid.

Coyne added this addendum to his post:

I’m aware now that creationists and IDers have been using this 85% to cast doubt on human evolution, our place in the ape family tree, and whether evolutionists are honest. This is bogus: the 85% vs. 98% depends on two different methods of calculating similarity. Which ever method you choose (alignment vs. total genomic similarity), the same family tree of the great apes appears, with chimps/bonobos our closest [relatives], then gorillas a bit more distance, and then orangutans, and then other apes. The point of this post is not to cast doubt on human or ape evolution, but to show different ways of calculating genetic similarity.​

(Coyne also confusingly used "ancestor" which I edited to "relative". Chimps are not ancestral to humans, but we do share a common ancestor that is not shared with Gorillas.)

98/97% versus 85% is about what the comparison is. The same relationship tree exists with any of these methods.

 

[Aggie]

Scientific research is not published on Twitter. Find the original peer-reveiwed research from a reputable journal (thinking you might have trouble with that ).

As far as I'm able to tell, the new percentage value is actually supported by the Nature paper. Although as Hans Blaster mentioned, it's based on a calculating the level of similarity with a different method from the one that produced the 98% number.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't believe in common ancestry; we believe in common design.

From AI Overview:

Same similarities (DNA, anatomy) are interpreted as evidence of a common blueprint, not common descent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We don't believe in common ancestry; we believe in common design.

From AI Overview:

Same similarities (DNA, anatomy) are interpreted as evidence of a common blueprint, not common descent.

Did you need an AI overview for that? Really?

 

[Shemjaza]

Anybody remember me? I was a regular on this forum from 2004 until 2018, after which I mostly moved on to other things. I don't plan on becoming a regular here again, but I'm back for the time being to ask about a recent piece of evolutionary anthropology news.

https://x.com/OriginsUnveiled/status/1964040999468224774

According to this analysis, when the human and chimpanzee genomes are compared while including portions that hadn't previously been sequenced, their similarity drops from the commonly given 98% value to 84.7%. On the surface this seems valid, and the conclusion has been accepted by Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist who is qualified to evaluate it. Jerry Coyne's post from yesterday is what brought this analysis to my attention.

But there is something odd about this conclusion: it's virtually identical to an argument made in 2012 by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins in the Journal of Creation. Bergman and Tomkins' 2012 argument was that when human and chimpanzee genomes are compared using data typically omitted from these comparisons, the percentage similarity drops to somewhere in the 81-87 percent range. Either the recent analysis by "Origins Unveiled" is an example of a major creationist claim being vindicated by mainstream evolutionary anthropology, or it's a very clever false flag operation by a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent, which was convincing enough for even Jerry Coyne to be fooled.

Looking more closely, I've noticed a few other possible red flags. First, the argument made by "Origins Unveiled" (and accepted by Jerry Coyne) is based on a paper published in Nature on April 9th. The exact same argument made by "Origins Unveiled"—that this paper shows the creationist figure of 81-87% to be correct—was previously made six months ago by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. And second, "Origins Unveiled" is a relatively new Twitter account (registered in 2024) without any identifying information, aside from that they were a were considering a Ph.D in evolutionary anthropology until they quit due to "the rampant political correctness I witnessed among professors and students in potential university programs". Some of the account's other posts include accurate summaries of evolutionary anthropology concepts, but a fair number of creationists have legitimate PhDs and have published mainstream biology or geoscience research, so the ability to accurately explain these concepts doesn't prove the account's provenance either way.

I would like some help evaluating whether the "Origins Unveiled" Twitter account is for real, and whether it's a coincidence that they've reached the same conclusion as Luskin (and also previously Bergman and Tomkins), or whether this Twitter account is being operated someone associated with the Discovery Institute who's posing as an evolutionary anthropologist. I suppose it's also possible that this account belongs to a creationist or ID proponent but that the substance of their argument is still correct. I'm aware of one other case where a creationist objection (not to the theory evolution itself, but to the way it's been presented in textbooks) turned out to be valid.

The problem with cherry picking methods of comparison to drop the similarity of chimps and humans to 85% is that the same method make gorrillas and other gorillas less related still.

This means the comparison clearly isn't useful as a demonstration of separate lineage.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you need an AI overview for that? Really?

No, sir, I sure didn't.

I knew that a LONG time ago in my pre-teen years.

I would go to Sunday school and hear how God created us, then go to school and learn how [Gaia] created us.

I'm thankful that I learned the Truth in my earlier years; else I may have suffered cognitive dissonance and ended up choosing the wrong path.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

[Aggie]

I would go to Sunday school and hear how God created us, then go to school and learn how [Gaia] created us.

I'm thankful that I learned the Truth in my earlier years; else I may have suffered cognitive dissonance and ended up choosing the wrong path.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Well, I see that some things haven't changed in the past seven years, such as the style of argument that you're fond of making. I know you're aware of this already, but some of us don't see a contradiction between those two things. That's one of the points made in my book.

Seeing as you're this forum's most dedicated creationist poster, I'd be willing to send you a copy for free. The only things I'd require in return are the postage, and a promise that you'll read all of it. And before you dismiss my book as "evolutionist claptrap" or something similar, notice that it's been cited in a positive manner by professional creation scientists, in this paper. (It's the book cited as "Kane et al. 2016".) Please let me know if you're interested.