Question for creationists: Why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps?

[pitabread]

One of the things I've always found contradictory in the creationist position is this:

1) Humans share anatomical and genetic similiarities with other species. We're more alike in many ways to other species (especially other primates) than we are different. The general response from creationists on why organisms share similarities is that God used similar components or templates in creating different species. In another thread I asked why humans in particular are similar and received some good answers (e.g. humans designed to be part of a functioning biosphere with other living things would necessitate similarities).

2) On the other hand when comparing humans to other species, if we're considered too similar it seems to cause creationists a lot of consternation. Case in point are genetic comparisons which suggest we are 98%+ similar to our closest relatives the chimpanzee. This seems to be problematic for a lot of creationists. The ICR even has their version of the "human genome project" with the express goal of disproving genetic similarity with chimps.

To me these two positions are contradictory. If God created organisms independently and re-used fundamental genetic components then we would expect varying degrees of similarity with other species. So why does it matter if we are 95% or 98% or whatever degree of similarity with chimps? If God made us that similar to chimps, why dispute it?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Genetic similarity to chimpanzees is not the problem. Trying to argue that similar genes point to a common ancestor is.

Cytochrome-c is a protein and is a gene product. It functions as a key enzyme in oxidation reactions and seems to occur in practically every living organism. There are 20 different amino-acids. Cytochrome-c consists of a chain of 112 amino-acids, 19 of which occur in exactly the same sequential order positions in all organisms tested. Differences in the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino-acids are considered to be the result of mutational substitution during the course of evolution. The amino-acid constitution of human cytochrome-c differs from that of many but not all other species. There are no differences in the cytochrome-c taken from humans and from chimpanzees, and only one difference between human cytochrome-c (the amino-acid isoleucine in position 66) and that from the Rhesus monkey (threonine in that position). The numbers of differences in the cytochrome-c of various species compared with that of humans are: cow, pig, sheep (10), horse (12), hen and turkey (13), rattlesnake (14), dogfish (23), fly (25), wheat (35), yeast (44) etc.
Information of this nature is used to construct phylogenetic trees of assumed genetic relationship. This is presented as evidence for evolution on a molecular level and, among other things, it is concluded that man and the chimpanzee have a relatively recent common ancestor. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, does the constitution of cytochrome-c provide valid evidence for evolution?

The fact that cytochrome-c has a fixed number of 112 amino-acids is an indication of the importance of the three-dimensional structure of the molecule, i.e., there is a structural constraint on the total number of amino-acids. On the other hand, only 19 of the 112 are indentical in all organisms tested. Since the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino-acids differ among organisms except, for example, in the case of man and chimpanzee, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no functional constraints on the substitution of these remaining amino-acids.
Apart from the single gene controlling the constitution of cytochrome-c, humans and chimpanzees differ in many thousands of other genes. As a conservative estimate, let us say 5,000. What the theory of evolution is saying is that while humans and chimpanzees have evolved independently from a common ancestor so as to now differ in these 5,000 genes, there has been no change in the 93 amino-acids specified by the cytochrome-c gene, and this in spite of there being no functional constraints on change in any of the latter. I find this to be an unacceptable claim.

According to Weaver and Hedrick, however, the lack of differentiation in the constitution of cytochrome-c between humans and chimpanzees is due to the very slow (0.3x10^-9) estimated rate of amino-acid substitution in cytochrome-c. How is this rate determined? It is estimated on the basis of the assumed time since the species diverged, i.e., the claim is assumed proven on the assumption that it is true. Must I accept this kind of reasoning? I don't think so.

- By Dr. J. Allan, Ph.D. in genetics at the University of Edinburgh

 

[pitabread]

Genetic similarity to chimpanzees is not the problem.

According to the Institute for Creation Research it is.

 

[Palmfever]

DNA commonality, humans, plants and animals.

Source of all life on Earth is the same and that is the reason we have genetic similarity in humans and plants. The percentages are surely not as high as in case of animals but there is a significant resemblance. Cabbage shares approximately 50% properties of the human gene. Cytochrome C is the protein that is common in both the species as it is found in Mitochondria.

I think I’ve known a cabbage head or two. Now I understand what side of the family they pulled from.

30 trillion cells in the average size human body

40 trillion bacteria on and in the human body

380 trillion viruses on and in the human body Source

It is worth noting that individual humans generally differ by about 0.1 percent genetically. Thus, chimps differ from humans by about 15-fold more, on the average, than humans do from one another. The 0.1 percent human divergence certainly results in significant variation in physical appearance and traits between different humans. Therefor, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised that chimps could be 98.5 percent related to humans. Relatively small genetic changes can produce major phenotypic changes. Scientific American

I’m pretty sure I’ve come across some monkey brained humans also. Or as they prefer to be referred to, Pneumo-cranium disordered.

 

[BNR32FAN]

One of the things I've always found contradictory in the creationist position is this:

1) Humans share anatomical and genetic similiarities with other species. We're more alike in many ways to other species (especially other primates) than we are different. The general response from creationists on why organisms share similarities is that God used similar components or templates in creating different species. In another thread I asked why humans in particular are similar and received some good answers (e.g. humans designed to be part of a functioning biosphere with other living things would necessitate similarities).

2) On the other hand when comparing humans to other species, if we're considered too similar it seems to cause creationists a lot of consternation. Case in point are genetic comparisons which suggest we are 98%+ similar to our closest relatives the chimpanzee. This seems to be problematic for a lot of creationists. The ICR even has their version of the "human genome project" with the express goal of disproving genetic similarity with chimps.

To me these two positions are contradictory. If God created organisms independently and re-used fundamental genetic components then we would expect varying degrees of similarity with other species. So why does it if we are 95% or 98% or whatever degree of similarity with chimps? If God made us that similar to chimps, why dispute it?

I think the reason is because they are refuting the idea that we share genetic similarities because we are evolved from them. To me sharing genetic similarities to chimpanzees isn’t evidence of evolution because we also share genetic similarities with many other species. I reject evolution because I have more faith in God’s word than the wisdom of this world. I don’t cate if the world seems inherently deceptive because Jesus was very well known for often saying “he who has ears to hear let him hear”. I think the inherent deceptive appearance of the world is just another stumbling block for those who choose not to hear and believe. Very much like the parables that’s Jesus often spoke in when He was among nonbelievers. Mark 4 comes to mind.

“And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve disciples, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those who are outside, everything comes in parables, so that WHILE SEEING THEY MAY SEE, AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR, AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND IT WOULD BE FORGIVEN THEM.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭4:9-12‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

 

[pitabread]

I think the reason is because they are refuting the idea that we share genetic similarities because we are evolved from them.

Nobody is saying we evolved from chimps. Rather, modern humans and chimps would share a common ancestor.

And disputing the relative similarity of the genomes doesn't actually refute the idea we share a common ancestor. If God created organisms with different relative similarities between them (which is what we observe), then the relative similarities or differences should be irrelevant. So I still don't know why this is a bugaboo for some creationists.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nobody is saying we evolved from chimps. Rather, modern humans and chimps would share a common ancestor.

And disputing the relative similarity of the genomes doesn't actually refute the idea we share a common ancestor. If God created organisms with different relative similarities between them (which is what we observe), then the relative similarities or differences should be irrelevant. So I still don't know why this is a bugaboo for some creationists.

How could we share a common ancestor if both man and all ground animals were made on the same day?

 

[pitabread]

How could we share a common ancestor if both man and all ground animals were made on the same day?

That's neither here nor there. The question is why relative similarity of genomes is an issue to creationists.

If humans and chimps were created independently and God reused the bulk of the genomic 'code' for each species, why does relative similarity matter?

Creationists already accept the former, so I'm not sure why there is an issue with the latter.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's neither here nor there. The question is why relative similarity of genomes is an issue to creationists.

If humans and chimps were created independently and God reused the bulk of the genomic 'code' for each species, why does relative similarity matter?

Creationists already accept the former, so I'm not sure why there is an issue with the latter.

I don’t know anyone who refutes the similarities. Like I said most people refute the idea that we are descendants from apes. I’m a creationist and I don’t refute any similarities between humans and apes, or cats, or mice, etc. I mean we see similarities in materials used to build cars & chainsaws or houses & barns but it doesn’t mean one evolved from the other. I guess I’m not the type of creationist your looking for since I don’t fit the description in the OP, so I can’t really testify as to why others may refute those similarities.

 

[pitabread]

I don’t know anyone who refutes the similarities.

The Institute for Creation Research does: The Institute for Creation Research

One of their 'projects' is listed as follows:

Genetics
Human Genome Project: disproving the myth that humans and chimps have 98% identical DNA
​

I guess I’m not the type of creationist your looking for since I don’t fit the description in the OP.

Fair enough.

 

[Lost4words]

My mates mother in law is very closely related to apes!

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Institute for Creation Research does: The Institute for Creation Research

One of their 'projects' is listed as follows:

Genetics
Human Genome Project: disproving the myth that humans and chimps have 98% identical DNA
​

Fair enough.

Yeah I’m not a scientist so I can only have faith in the information they provide since I don’t have the knowledge or resources to conduct my own studies.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah I’m not a scientist so I can only have faith in the information they provide since I don’t have the knowledge or resources to conduct my own studies.

The information they appear to be relying on is coming from Jeffrey Tomkins and his attempts at genetic comparisons have been fraught with error.

I'm just not sure why they're even bothering in the first place.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The information they appear to be relying on is coming from Jeffrey Tomkins and his attempts at genetic comparisons have been fraught with error.

I'm just not sure why they're even bothering in the first place.

To me it seems irrelevant to creation. Whether they are similar or not doesn’t negate nor confirm the biblical creation accounts.

 

[J_B_]

Why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps?

As many have said, it isn't an issue ... or shouldn't be. As has also been mentioned, for some it may be the thought that if they can demonstrate enough differences, it will establish that there is no common ancestor.

An issue that hasn't been mentioned is a philosophical position that humans are a special creation, set apart from all other animals. Genetic similarities seem to dispute that. That belief can go all the way to an overweening pride - an aristocratic arrogance of sorts.

 

[pitabread]

An issue that hasn't been mentioned is a philosophical position that humans are a special creation, set apart from all other animals. Genetic similarities seem to dispute that. That belief can go all the way to an overweening pride - an aristocratic arrogance of sorts.

I brought something similar up in another thread: Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

The idea being that if God really wanted to set us apart, they could have made us a wholly unique organism. But they didn't. Instead we have more in common with other living things (especially other primates) than we do differences.

I did receive some compelling answers as to why God might have done that, including the idea that we are meant to be part of a functioning biosphere.

So it seems an odd thing to get hung up on a relative % of genetic difference. Whether we're 98% or 90% or 80%, we're still more similar than dissimilar.

 

[J_B_]

I brought something similar up in another thread: Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

The idea being that if God really wanted to set us apart, they could have made us a wholly unique organism. But they didn't. Instead we have more in common with other living things (especially other primates) than we do differences.

I did receive some compelling answers as to why God might have done that, including the idea that we are meant to be part of a functioning biosphere.

So it seems an odd thing to get hung up on a relative % of genetic difference. Whether we're 98% or 90% or 80%, we're still more similar than dissimilar.

Don't get me wrong. While the similarities between humans and other primates are obvious even without resorting to genetics, so are the differences. I just don't see the point in getting hung up on either.

Further, I do think God set people apart for a special purpose. Our intelligence does seem key, and maybe our spiritual capacity is built on that, but it's just not something I focus on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps?

As many have said, it isn't an issue ... or shouldn't be. As has also been mentioned, for some it may be the thought that if they can demonstrate enough differences, it will establish that there is no common ancestor.

An issue that hasn't been mentioned is a philosophical position that humans are a special creation, set apart from all other animals. Genetic similarities seem to dispute that. That belief can go all the way to an overweening pride - an aristocratic arrogance of sorts.

Yes - the aversion to common ancestry with chimps always struck me as likely to be a combination of human exceptionalism (special creation) and the folk use of 'ape' and 'monkey' as insults.

 

[Ophiolite]

To me these two positions are contradictory. If God created organisms independently and re-used fundamental genetic components then we would expect varying degrees of similarity with other species. So why does it if we are 95% or 98% or whatever degree of similarity with chimps? If God made us that similar to chimps, why dispute it?

It is an interesting observation that had never occurred to me. Thank you for raising it. Possible explanations that occur to me are:

• DNA data are (improperly) perceived as quantitative in contrast with qualitative anatomical data.
• There is recognition that genotype is more fundamental than phenotype
• Casting doubt on the % value indirectly trivialises the connection of humans to other apes

I have a personal response to the question in your title, why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps? It matters because I am proud of my relationship to Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus. The closer it is, the happier I am.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have a personal response to the question in your title, why does it matter how genetically closely related humans are to chimps? It matters because I am proud of my relationship to Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus. The closer it is, the happier I am.

Why? whatever path evolution takes there will always be a 'most closely related' species or genus; what is there to be proud of? [genuinely curious]