# The Myth of 1% (Human/Chimp commonality)



## panta dokimazete (Jul 13, 2007)

When the Chimpanzee Genome was published in 2005, there was a media frenzy suggesting that we now had proof that Chimps and Humans share approximately 99% of the same DNA. This misunderstanding has persisted for more than 25 years and was originally based on a comparison of protein coding genes between the two species. Nevertheless, by definition, this comparison could only be based upon protein coding genes that both species possess. We now know that humans possess hundreds of genes that are absent in the chimpanzee. 

more here


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 14, 2007)

See, even when I was a lot more inclined towards the evolutionary perspective, I've always thought this merely meant God was efficient and didn't need 10,000 ways to manufacture various basic cellular chemicals. 

Furthermore, I would say that even if every species shared 100% of the same DNA with only external/environmental triggers activating what the individual creature would become, I would still say that is indicative of God's efficiency in design.

As I see this, it's an argument that works for both sides and is a red herring to the creation/evolution discussion.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 14, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> See, even when I was a lot more inclined towards the evolutionary perspective, I've always thought this merely meant God was efficient and didn't need 10,000 ways to manufacture various basic cellular chemicals.
> 
> Furthermore, I would say that even if every species shared 100% of the same DNA with only external/environmental triggers activating what the individual creature would become, I would still say that is indicative of God's efficiency in design.
> 
> As I see this, it's an argument that works for both sides and is a red herring to the creation/evolution discussion.



Yah - I have trouble with the validity of the argument, either way. Similarity or disparity - ultimately one has to come to the point that they are willing to except common *ancestry* or not.


----------



## caddy (Jul 14, 2007)

A few pages in:

_*Conclusion*
Taken together the fossils do not appear to provide indisputable evidence for the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Indeed, birds appear in the fossil record lower than their supposed ancestors, not higher as we might expect. Also, some of the evidence (Protoavis and Triassic bird footprints) appears to refute the current evolutionary story of bird ancestry. Furthermore, the evidence for "protofeathers" has been questioned. However, evolutionists try to explain away the discordant evidence to protect the theory. Therefore, I conclude that the existence of superbly engineered birds remains a significant challenge to neo-darwinian evolution.

_


----------

