Missing Link?

[Faith.Man]

I wonder why evolutionists are the ones that are falsifying evolutionary claims, and not creationists?

That is an excellent question. I wish I would have asked that.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is an excellent question. I wish I would have asked that.

No one is going to listen if your a creationist. Most of the popular scientific press on genomic comparisons of chimpanzees and humans say we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees. This is simply not true and they have known this for years. Even the Nature Focus Article announcing the Chimpanzee Genome paper says 98% when the article specifically says otherwise. Not long ago I was on the Smithsonian site and they said 98% on there.

While Piltdown was still popular even the Smithsonian had an exhibit on Piltdown. Their explanation for how the fraud was so successful was simply that people see what they want to see. Taung is a fossil that was rightfully called a chimpanzee as long as Piltdown held it's popularity but when it started to fade away it became one of our ancestors.

There is a long list of deceptions out there that are simply accepted because creation as an alternative is simply unacceptable. My favorite has come to be the ERVs, they make this contrived homology argument based on the same mutations in the same psuedo-genes (Not always but often ERVs are found in psuedo-genes)in the same place. What they don't tell anyone is that the largest family of ERVs in the chimpanzee genome are absent in the human genome. Except for the psuedo-theology of TEs I have never seen an argument for evolution fall harder or faster.

Notice the Class I ERV section

-

(Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)

What does our genome share with the chimpanzees?


Here is another indication of just how huge the divergence is based just on the ERVs. Again notice the Class I ERVs:

Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation

The amazing thing is that despite these huge differences when comparing the two genomes side by side scientists still get by with saying 98% the same in our DNA. No one calls them on it, no one holds them accountable, no one makes the correction because homology arguments are without skepticism in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives. The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families​

Creationists don't expose frauds like Piltdown because for one thing, no creationist is going to get a chance to actually examine the evidence. What is infinitely more important is that any homology argument is given instant credibility. The actual fraud is in passing off these homology arguments as scientifically viable or verifiable.

By the way, creationists are the most radical of evolutionists. How long has it been since Noah's Art touched dry land on Ararat? That is one of the biggest frauds of all, that creationism is antievolution, that is absurd in the extreme unless evolution is defined as, 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes', which is not a scientific definition.. The scientific definition of evolution is in perfect keeping with creationist thought and conviction, in fact, it is the only way to explain the rapid re-population of the earth after the flood.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

mark, you reject homology as a valid means for inferring common ancestry, yet you yourself admit that you are a "radical evolutionist." Can I ask how you infer evolution within kinds if not with reference to homology? Maybe I'm just not understanding where you're coming from.

Also, how similar do you think the chimp and human genomes are? Is the human genome still more similar to that of a chimp than any other animal?

 

[crawfish]

Mark,

I'm a bit confused over the two subjects you mentioned. Perhaps you can clear them up for me.

First, there are creationists all over the physical sciences. I learn this from creationist web sites like AiG. All data is published and available to the scientific community. How exactly are they being denied access to evidence?

Are there instances where a scientific hypothesis was pushed forward by a creationist is ignored or ridiculed by the scientific community and then later accepted? I'm sure there are many instances where a creationist denied some scientific conclusion that later turned out to be true, but to be honest, if I answer "false" on every question on a true/false exam I should get roughly 50% right.

Second, why should the existence of additional ERVs be a problem to evolution? Evolution certainly allows for this to happen. As long as ERVs can be traced up the evolutionary tree, does it matter if any ERV's appeared after the presumed split?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

I'm a bit confused over the two subjects you mentioned. Perhaps you can clear them up for me.

First, there are creationists all over the physical sciences. I learn this from creationist web sites like AiG. All data is published and available to the scientific community. How exactly are they being denied access to evidence?

That was a specific reference to the Piltdown fraud and even Louis Leaky didn't get a chance at them even though he had said that the jaw did not belong with that skull. Creationists are never going to be allowed to gain credulity by being involved with anything other then published works. They can review the findings but actually handling things like fossils are never going to be allowed and certainly valid skepticism will never see the light of day.

Are there instances where a scientific hypothesis was pushed forward by a creationist is ignored or ridiculed by the scientific community and then later accepted? I'm sure there are many instances where a creationist denied some scientific conclusion that later turned out to be true, but to be honest, if I answer "false" on every question on a true/false exam I should get roughly 50% right.

Creationism didn't make it's way into a scientific context until sometime in the 70s, it's always been theology based.

Second, why should the existence of additional ERVs be a problem to evolution? Evolution certainly allows for this to happen. As long as ERVs can be traced up the evolutionary tree, does it matter if any ERV's appeared after the presumed split?

The largest group of them are not only absent in humans but present in chimpanzees, they represent and enormous difference. The inverse logic of homology applies to them.

mark, you reject homology as a valid means for inferring common ancestry, yet you yourself admit that you are a "radical evolutionist." Can I ask how you infer evolution within kinds if not with reference to homology? Maybe I'm just not understanding where you're coming from.

I have no real problem with a homology argument as long as the inverse logic remains a possibility and with evolutionists it never is. There is a theological theme to the homology arguments that should be taken into consideration. By the same criteria that creationism is rejected by modern science (religious inferences) Darwinism should be.

Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule?

You have always been straight with me Mallon, I don't mind shelling the argument down to the core principles with you.

Also, how similar do you think the chimp and human genomes are? Is the human genome still more similar to that of a chimp than any other animal?

That's tough to say but the fact is that 98% is just plain bogus and they have known it for years. Now they may well be our closest comparative lineage but are we there's? The jury is still out on that one and I've found that aside from the actual peer reviewed papers evolutionists can't be trusted to make candid, explicit statements regarding chimpanzee/human comparisons. Your experiences might be different.

 

[Mallon]

I have no real problem with a homology argument as long as the inverse logic remains a possibility and with evolutionists it never is.

What "inverse logic" are you referring to? Could you please provide an example? I'm not clear about what you mean. Homology is inferred if it can pass the tests of similarity, conjunction, and congruence. Is there some other explanation besides homology that be invoked a priori that accounts for features that pass these tests? I don't think special creation works because special creation can be invoked to account for structures that DON'T pass these tests as well. It can be invoked to explain everything, and therefore explains nothing.

There is a theological theme to the homology arguments that should be taken into consideration.

What do you mean by this?

That's tough to say but the fact is that 98% is just plain bogus and they have known it for years. Now they may well be our closest comparative lineage but are we there's? The jury is still out on that one and I've found that aside from the actual peer reviewed papers evolutionists can't be trusted to make candid, explicit statements regarding chimpanzee/human comparisons. Your experiences might be different.

I don't agree that the 98% figure is bogus, but for the sake of argument, I'll grant your position. So what's the true figure? 96% 92%? The point is that the chimp genome is VERY similar to that of humans, and in fact, is more similar to that of humans than to any other animal. The question that follows is Why? Why are humans and chimps so similar to the exclusion of all other animals?

 

[crawfish]

That was a specific reference to the Piltdown fraud and even Louis Leaky didn't get a chance at them even though he had said that the jaw did not belong with that skull. Creationists are never going to be allowed to gain credulity by being involved with anything other then published works. They can review the findings but actually handling things like fossils are never going to be allowed and certainly valid skepticism will never see the light of day.

The first sign of a fraud is when access is restricted or denied (see Carl Baugh). I'm not sure how pointing out Louis Leaky is going to help your argument about some conspiracy against atheists, though.

The largest group of them are not only absent in humans but present in chimpanzees, they represent and enormous difference. The inverse logic of homology applies to them.

I still don't see why that affects common descent theory. Even if 98% isn't true, there is still an enormous amount (93%+) of similarity between chimps and man (as mallon mentions), and the theory is only strengthened by the fact that the similarities work in a way explained best by common descent.

I think your task would be simple - find just one of those chimp ERV's that doesn't exist in man, and find its match further up the evolutionary tree, and you've presented a serious problem for common descent. Find five, or three, or even two, and you've statistically falsified common descent once and for all. At least that's my understanding of things.

 

[Faith.Man]

No one is going to listen if your a creationist. Most of the popular scientific press on genomic comparisons of chimpanzees and humans say we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees. This is simply not true and they have known this for years. Even the Nature Focus Article announcing the Chimpanzee Genome paper says 98% when the article specifically says otherwise. Not long ago I was on the Smithsonian site and they said 98% on there.

While Piltdown was still popular even the Smithsonian had an exhibit on Piltdown. Their explanation for how the fraud was so successful was simply that people see what they want to see. Taung is a fossil that was rightfully called a chimpanzee as long as Piltdown held it's popularity but when it started to fade away it became one of our ancestors.

There is a long list of deceptions out there that are simply accepted because creation as an alternative is simply unacceptable. My favorite has come to be the ERVs, they make this contrived homology argument based on the same mutations in the same psuedo-genes (Not always but often ERVs are found in psuedo-genes)in the same place. What they don't tell anyone is that the largest family of ERVs in the chimpanzee genome are absent in the human genome. Except for the psuedo-theology of TEs I have never seen an argument for evolution fall harder or faster.

Notice the Class I ERV section

-

(Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)

What does our genome share with the chimpanzees?


Here is another indication of just how huge the divergence is based just on the ERVs. Again notice the Class I ERVs:

Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation

The amazing thing is that despite these huge differences when comparing the two genomes side by side scientists still get by with saying 98% the same in our DNA. No one calls them on it, no one holds them accountable, no one makes the correction because homology arguments are without skepticism in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives. The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families​

Creationists don't expose frauds like Piltdown because for one thing, no creationist is going to get a chance to actually examine the evidence. What is infinitely more important is that any homology argument is given instant credibility. The actual fraud is in passing off these homology arguments as scientifically viable or verifiable.

By the way, creationists are the most radical of evolutionists. How long has it been since Noah's Art touched dry land on Ararat? That is one of the biggest frauds of all, that creationism is antievolution, that is absurd in the extreme unless evolution is defined as, 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes', which is not a scientific definition.. The scientific definition of evolution is in perfect keeping with creationist thought and conviction, in fact, it is the only way to explain the rapid re-population of the earth after the flood.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I believe there's a difference between macro-evolution and environmentally caused micro-evolution.

Have you ever read the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes?

 

[mark kennedy]

What "inverse logic" are you referring to? Could you please provide an example?

For instance, if the DNA is so close only common ancestry can explain it then the differences are substantive reason to accept separate lineage and special creation. The problem is that homology arguments are a one way street

I'm not clear about what you mean. Homology is inferred if it can pass the tests of similarity, conjunction, and congruence. Is there some other explanation besides homology that be invoked a priori that accounts for features that pass these tests?

We can get into this semantics snarl some other time. If a homology argument is to be accepted as valid then the inverse logic should be intuitively obvious.

I don't think special creation works because special creation can be invoked to account for structures that DON'T pass these tests as well. It can be invoked to explain everything, and therefore explains nothing.

Which is exactly what the problem with the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent.

What do you mean by this?

Try this explanation:

The theological premise in this argument -- that the apparent uniformity of certain biological patterns is inconsistent with the freedom of a creator to act as he wishes -- is nowhere better illustrated than in Darwin's book on the "contrivances" of orchids. After reviewing the homologies of orchids and ordinary flowers, Darwin appeals to our intuitions about what God would have done in this case:

Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant....? [60]

Removing the theology from Darwin's argument for the common descent of the Orchideae would eviscerate it. Darwin provides no fossil evidence that orchids evolved from ordinary flowers, nor indeed any experimental evidence that such a transformation is even possible. [61] Rather, in the chapter leading to the passage cited above, Darwin describes patterns of similarity among orchids -- which patterns might, on a creationist reading of the evidence, indicate the purposeful workings of a designer. If one accepts however the premise that it is unfitting to ascribe variations on an "ideal type" to the direct artifice of an omnipotent creator, the same patterns become evidence of common descent. The theology in the passage is thus far more than a rhetorical device. It is the logical pivot of Darwin's entire argument.​

Jettison the Argument or the Rule

I don't agree that the 98% figure is bogus, but for the sake of argument, I'll grant your position.

I'm not interested in you 'granting' me anything. What do you mean you don't agree, based on what!? Certainly not on this:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)​

This paper cites five other findings agreeing with my statement that 98% is wrong.

• Lineage-specific gene duplication and loss in human and great ape evolution. PLoS Biol. 2, E207 (2004)
• Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13633–13635 (2002)
• Genomic DNA insertions and deletions occur frequently between humans and nonhuman primates. Genome Res. 13, 341–346 (2003)
• Large-scale variation among human and great ape genomes determined by array comparative genomic hybridization. Genome Res. 13, 347–357 (2003)
• Analysis of primate genomic variation reveals a repeat-driven expansion of the human genome. Genome Res. 13, 358–368 (2003)

Give me one substantive reason you could possibly have to doubt that the '98% the same in our DNA' mantra is wrong.

So what's the true figure? 96% 92%? The point is that the chimp genome is VERY similar to that of humans, and in fact, is more similar to that of humans than to any other animal. The question that follows is Why? Why are humans and chimps so similar to the exclusion of all other animals?

The question is how, not how much and certainly not why:

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ One of Darwin’s contemporaries, Gregor Johann Mendel, was doing a series of experiments with pea plants that yielded the laws of inheritance that would become the cornerstone of modern genetics. Darwin’s book popularized the idea of common decent while Mendel’s only surviving paper would not be rediscovered for nearly half a century later. Mendelian laws of inheritance became inextricably linked to waves of discovery starting with chromosome theory and culminating in the molecular basis of heredity: The DNA double helix. Darwinism contributed nothing to the waves of discovery but was philosophically commingled with genetics in what has become known as the modern synthesis.

In order to examine the scientific basis for common descent I propose to examine the genetic basis for the common descent of humans from that of apes. The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

No cause, no directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism and you have supposition and speculation, not science.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe there's a difference between macro-evolution and environmentally caused micro-evolution.

Have you ever read the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes?

No actually I have never heard of it. Right now I'm reading John Warwick Montgomery 'Faith Founded on Fact'. I'm starting to lose all confidence in Presuppositional Apologetics and exploring evidential apologetics once again.

 

[mark kennedy]

The first sign of a fraud is when access is restricted or denied (see Carl Baugh). I'm not sure how pointing out Louis Leaky is going to help your argument about some conspiracy against atheists, though.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I mentioned Louis Leaky in passing while making another point entirely.

I still don't see why that affects common descent theory. Even if 98% isn't true, there is still an enormous amount (93%+) of similarity between chimps and man (as mallon mentions), and the theory is only strengthened by the fact that the similarities work in a way explained best by common descent.

No 'even if', I simply refuse to accept that kind of a dodge. Either the statement that we are '98% the same in our DNA' is true or it is false. Why don't you check the actual scientific literature and get back to me on that.

I think your task would be simple - find just one of those chimp ERV's that doesn't exist in man, and find its match further up the evolutionary tree, and you've presented a serious problem for common descent. Find five, or three, or even two, and you've statistically falsified common descent once and for all. At least that's my understanding of things.

True two and they are the most abundant families of ERVs in the Chimpanzee Genome.

"We report here that the chimpanzee genome contains at least 42 separate families of endogenous retroviruses, nine of which were not previously identified. All but two (CERV 1/PTERV1 and CERV 2) of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses were found to have orthologs in humans. Molecular analysis (PCR and Southern hybridization) of CERV 2 elements demonstrates that this family is present in chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla and old-world monkeys but absent in human, orangutan and new-world monkeys. A survey of endogenous retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans determined that approximately 7% of all chimpanzee-human INDEL variation is associated with endogenous retroviral sequences." (Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses Genome Biol. 2006)​

This indicates that not only are they absent in the human genome they are the most abundant class of ERVs in the Chimpanzee Genome:

CERV 1/PTERV1
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. CERV 1/PTERV1 elements range in size from 5 to 8.8 kb in length, are bordered by inverted terminal repeats (TG and CA) and are characterized by 4 bp TSDs...Phylogenetic analysis of the LTRs from full-length elements of CERV 1/PTERV1 members indicated that this family of LTRs can be grouped into at least two subfamilies (bootstrap value of 99; Figure 3). The age of each subfamily was estimated by calculating the average of the pairwise distances between all sequences in a given subfamily. The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome.
Genome Biol. 2006
​

Finally the time line for there insertion make their entrance into the Chimpanzee Genome right around the time of or long before the split. Can you explain that?

This time I know where he is getting his information, he is taking it from an outdated argument on Talk Origins. The current evidence is not indicating a smoking gun by any stretch. In fact, the ERVs are actually another problem for a common ancestor. In fact CERV 2 (Chimpanzee ERV) has an estimated age of 21.9 mya to 14.1 mya with no human orthologues. The CERV1/PtERV1 with 100 members is estimated between 5 mya and 7.8 mya. That means that the most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee Genome came about before or right around the split That means in addition to the adaptive evolution of the human brain our ancestors would have had to adapt their immune system to push these ERVs to the brink of extinction. Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation​

There are the facts if you have the courage of your convictions and should be creating a 'serious problem' for common ancestry. But it doesn't create a problem crawfish does it? Well....does it or not!?

 

[crawfish]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I mentioned Louis Leaky in passing while making another point entirely.

You were making a point about how creationists were denied access to materials related to Piltdown, and in passing mentioned that evolutionist Louis Leaky was also denied access. Again, that hardly strengthens your case.

No 'even if', I simply refuse to accept that kind of a dodge. Either the statement that we are '98% the same in our DNA' is true or it is false. Why don't you check the actual scientific literature and get back to me on that.

If you're trying to argue that some have presented faulty data as fact, then you have a point. If you're trying to reject the idea of similarity based on the fact that the 98% figure has been pushed when it's not true, when in fact the actual figure still strongly indicates similarity, then you're presenting a misleading argument yourself.

There are the facts if you have the courage of your convictions and should be creating a 'serious problem' for common ancestry. But it doesn't create a problem crawfish does it? Well....does it or not!?

This is the data I wanted you to present, and now your point makes sense. I will do some research on your claims. Granted, they aren't as strong as finding identical ERV's in some lineage farther down (like mice), but it does present a challenge that I do not know how to answer.

 

[Mallon]

For instance, if the DNA is so close only common ancestry can explain it then the differences are substantive reason to accept separate lineage and special creation. The problem is that homology arguments are a one way street...

We can get into this semantics snarl some other time. If a homology argument is to be accepted as valid then the inverse logic should be intuitively obvious.

I'm still not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that if homology arguments can be used to support common ancestry, then differences between lineages should be seen as evidence of special creation?
If so, then I disagree. It's a fairly intuitive thing that two lineages descended from a common ancestor will diverge with time, accumulating traits unique to each. After all, all humans share a common ancestry, but we look significantly different from one another (e.g., different races, cultures, etc.). Still, it's the similarities we all share that suggest we are descended from a common ancestor. More than that, it's the NESTED pattern of similarities that argue for common ancestry -- a pattern that extends across all levels life: All apes have fur and mammary glands, but not all animals with fur and mammary glands are apes; all animals with fur and mammary glands have claws or nails, but not all animals with claws or nails have fur and mammary glands; all animals with claws or nails have lungs, but not all animals with lungs have claws or nails; all animals with lungs have jaws, but not all animals with jaws have lungs... etc... etc... etc... The pattern I'm describing can be illustrated as such:

This nested pattern of acquired traits within animals only makes sense with reference to descent with modification (common ancestry). Adaptive evolutionary novelties are maintained in all descendant species. Special creation does not explain the existence this pattern. Creation scientist Todd Wood explains the problem of biological similarity for creationism further here:
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=u4FIU0eLuT6SmyXcvLmbCiFa4UnoWsTP3lyArVOo/gM=
It's a problem that still stands, as he wrote on his blog not too long ago.

Which is exactly what the problem with the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Common ancestry follows from the nested distribution of traits in animals and plants, as I've explained above. It is not an assumption. This is something Todd Wood explains on his blog as well. See my signature.
This video explains everything I've just said in more detail:
YouTube - Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument.

Try this explanation:

The theological premise in this argument -- that the apparent uniformity of certain biological patterns is inconsistent with the freedom of a creator to act as he wishes -- is nowhere better illustrated than in Darwin's book on the "contrivances" of orchids.​

The above argument you cited doesn't make sense. Of course God, in His omnipotence, can create as He wishes. He is unconstrained, and homology arguments don't deny this. But life IS constrained. It follows a nested pattern as I showed above. The question evolution addresses is why this pattern exists. Simply saying God created life as-is doesn't explain the existence of this pattern. Similarly, saying God made the sky blue doesn't help us to understand WHY the sky is blue. Saying God created the moon to orbit the earth doesn't explain WHY the moon orbits the earth. Again, an argument that explains everything ("God created it that way") really explains nothing because it doesn't further our knowledge about why things are the way they are. We need to evoke testable explanations.

Give me one substantive reason you could possibly have to doubt that the '98% the same in our DNA' mantra is wrong.

Like I said, I'm willing to grant you that it is wrong. Maybe chimps and humans share "only" 96% of their DNA in common. Maybe it's "only" 95%. The point is that humans and chimps still share a VAST MAJORITY if their DNA in common. In fact, they are more similar to one another than to any other animal. The exact percentage doesn't matter, and so I'm not going argue about it here. It isn't as though humans and chimps could be related only if they shared more than 98% of their DNA in common. The argument that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor than any other animal holds so long as their DNA and morphology is more similar to one another than to any other animal. The exact numbers don't matter.

The question is how, not how much and certainly not why:

You're not interested in learning why God made humans and chimps so similar? Fair enough, but I don't think that should prevent everyone else from trying. If God's creation really does reveal to us facts about the Creator, then I think the onus is on us to study His creation and reveal those facts.

... No cause, no directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism and you have supposition and speculation, not science.

The inferred close relationship between humans and chimps is based on the similarity of their DNA and morphology, and on the many transitional fossils we have found. It is a conclusion based on the evidence, not a supposition. We may not yet understand every mechanism that facilitated the transition of humans from 'lower' apes, but I think you'll agree that isn't necessary to infer common ancestry. You've said before that you accept the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals, yet we don't understand all the mechanisms that were involved in that transition, either. The argument that humans cannot be related to apes simply because we don't yet have a full of understanding of the mechanisms of brain evolution is moot. It's a logical fallacy. An argument from incredulity. We don't yet fully understand the development of an embryo in the womb, either, but that doesn't mean babies are created in the womb de novo.