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:
a) 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. Similar proteins break down similar proteins.
b) 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.
c) 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
Here are more problems which show the inaccuracy of the study:
1) Some sections of human/chimp DNA are similar and some sections are very very different. So it all depends on which section of DNA you are comparing:
"One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species' DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.
2) DNA sample sizes used for human/chimp DNA comparisons was very small in comparison to the total genome:
The sample of 779 kilobase pairs is indeed small compared to the total human genome which is estimated at 3 billion base pairs. In other words, out of the 3,000,000,000 base pairs which they could have compared, they only compared 779,000 base pairs or 779,000/3,000,000,000 = 0.00026 or 0.026%.
And we call that a comparison?
3) Even though the study claimed to use 'complete' genomes for comparison, they clearly were nothing near 'complete'.
The following article statement above PROVES beyond all doubt that they DID NOT USE COMPLETE GENOMES of either chimp or human for the comparison.
It says: "All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."
(ref: Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome).
After artificially discarding sections of both human and chimp DNA that didn't match up, the remaining chimp DNA was 88% of the total chimp genome and an even lower percentage of the human genome - possibly as low as 75% of the total human genome - were compared, NOT 100% of each genome as everybody was led to believe. This biased methodology GUARANTEES that the comparison will yield a very high percentage of similarity but in a very misleading way.
4) The Chimp genome was 15% SHORTER than the human genome - how can a 99% similarity be found if one is 15% SHORTER than the other?
Let's first look at the size/length of the human genome:
"The human genome contains 3164.7 (3.1 Gb) million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G)." (Human Genome News, 2001)
"The human genome is 3.3 Gb in length." (Integrated DNA Technologies, 2011)
So the human genome size is about 3.1 to 3.3 Giga base pairs. This averages to 3.2 Giga base pairs for the human genome.
Unfortunately, the chimp genome size they used in this 2005 comparison study was much smaller at 2.7 Gb according to their attached Data Tables. This is a size difference of about 15% in comparison to the 3.2 Gb human genome.
By size comparison, the chimp genome size used by the study is about 85% of the size of the human genome (2.7Gb/3.2Gb) = .85 or 85%.
So the question is, how does the smaller chimp genome (for this specific study) - which is only about 85% of the human genome in size - exactly align to a much larger human genome? It doesn't !
If one genome is 15% shorter, how do they "align" by 99% except by some 'fudging' with the sequences and 'expanding' one genome to 'fit' and "exactly align' with the other by introducing 'gaps' to artificially lengthen the shorter genome to match the longer one?
Bottom line: if the chimp genome length is 15% SHORTER than the human genome, how do we get a 99% similarity overall? Unless you 'cheat' and space the chimp genome further apart then is natural to do - in order to get the DNA sequences to meet end-to-end with the human genome, there is no perfectly aligned match-up.
5) Then we have the problem of CONTAMINATION:
(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011):
"The danger in the propagation of errors in scientific discourse has been demonstrated in cases of both scientific fraud as well as incorrectly described or referenced experiments in reviews."
"The level of contamination found in these databases is significant and worrisome."
(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011)
Bottom Line: We have to start screening chimp DNA databases for human contamination to see if some genome similarity is due to contamination or not.
6) The differences between humans and chimps is slowly being acknowledged by scientists:
(ref: Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry, Oxford Journals, 2007):
"For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions."
"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree."
Differences between Human and Chimpanzee Genome are Bigger than Thought (ref: Dept. of Experimental and Health Sciences, upf.edu, 2009)
"During the last decade it was commonly accepted that humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, only differed by 1.24 % in our DNA sequences. This discovery shows that this figure is absolutely incorrect and, what is more, may be ten times higher. Nature magazine is to publish this important scientific discovery in a special issue on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth....big DNA fragments repeated many times along the genome that were difficult to distinguish until recently. As a result of this difficulty, these fragments were ignored and parts of the genome easier to individualise were studied, leading to a partial view of it.
To wrap up: 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:
Human Gene Set Shrinks Again
A Fresh Look at 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:
a) 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. Similar proteins break down similar proteins.
b) 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.
c) 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
Here are more problems which show the inaccuracy of the study:
1) Some sections of human/chimp DNA are similar and some sections are very very different. So it all depends on which section of DNA you are comparing:
"One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species' DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.
2) DNA sample sizes used for human/chimp DNA comparisons was very small in comparison to the total genome:
The sample of 779 kilobase pairs is indeed small compared to the total human genome which is estimated at 3 billion base pairs. In other words, out of the 3,000,000,000 base pairs which they could have compared, they only compared 779,000 base pairs or 779,000/3,000,000,000 = 0.00026 or 0.026%.
And we call that a comparison?
3) Even though the study claimed to use 'complete' genomes for comparison, they clearly were nothing near 'complete'.
The following article statement above PROVES beyond all doubt that they DID NOT USE COMPLETE GENOMES of either chimp or human for the comparison.
It says: "All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."
(ref: Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome).
After artificially discarding sections of both human and chimp DNA that didn't match up, the remaining chimp DNA was 88% of the total chimp genome and an even lower percentage of the human genome - possibly as low as 75% of the total human genome - were compared, NOT 100% of each genome as everybody was led to believe. This biased methodology GUARANTEES that the comparison will yield a very high percentage of similarity but in a very misleading way.
4) The Chimp genome was 15% SHORTER than the human genome - how can a 99% similarity be found if one is 15% SHORTER than the other?
Let's first look at the size/length of the human genome:
"The human genome contains 3164.7 (3.1 Gb) million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G)." (Human Genome News, 2001)
"The human genome is 3.3 Gb in length." (Integrated DNA Technologies, 2011)
So the human genome size is about 3.1 to 3.3 Giga base pairs. This averages to 3.2 Giga base pairs for the human genome.
Unfortunately, the chimp genome size they used in this 2005 comparison study was much smaller at 2.7 Gb according to their attached Data Tables. This is a size difference of about 15% in comparison to the 3.2 Gb human genome.
By size comparison, the chimp genome size used by the study is about 85% of the size of the human genome (2.7Gb/3.2Gb) = .85 or 85%.
So the question is, how does the smaller chimp genome (for this specific study) - which is only about 85% of the human genome in size - exactly align to a much larger human genome? It doesn't !
If one genome is 15% shorter, how do they "align" by 99% except by some 'fudging' with the sequences and 'expanding' one genome to 'fit' and "exactly align' with the other by introducing 'gaps' to artificially lengthen the shorter genome to match the longer one?
Bottom line: if the chimp genome length is 15% SHORTER than the human genome, how do we get a 99% similarity overall? Unless you 'cheat' and space the chimp genome further apart then is natural to do - in order to get the DNA sequences to meet end-to-end with the human genome, there is no perfectly aligned match-up.
5) Then we have the problem of CONTAMINATION:
(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011):
"The danger in the propagation of errors in scientific discourse has been demonstrated in cases of both scientific fraud as well as incorrectly described or referenced experiments in reviews."
"The level of contamination found in these databases is significant and worrisome."
(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011)
Bottom Line: We have to start screening chimp DNA databases for human contamination to see if some genome similarity is due to contamination or not.
6) The differences between humans and chimps is slowly being acknowledged by scientists:
(ref: Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry, Oxford Journals, 2007):
"For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions."
"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree."
Differences between Human and Chimpanzee Genome are Bigger than Thought (ref: Dept. of Experimental and Health Sciences, upf.edu, 2009)
"During the last decade it was commonly accepted that humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, only differed by 1.24 % in our DNA sequences. This discovery shows that this figure is absolutely incorrect and, what is more, may be ten times higher. Nature magazine is to publish this important scientific discovery in a special issue on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth....big DNA fragments repeated many times along the genome that were difficult to distinguish until recently. As a result of this difficulty, these fragments were ignored and parts of the genome easier to individualise were studied, leading to a partial view of it.
To wrap up: 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:
Human Gene Set Shrinks Again
A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity
Last edited:
