# Monkey and human DNA 98% the same



## nwink (Jan 4, 2012)

I've heard people argue pro-evolution with one evidence being that monkey and human DNA is 98% the same, showing they are closely related. I'm no scientist...but how is the best way to address this argument, scientifically-speaking?


----------



## rookie (Jan 4, 2012)

Tell them tobacco and humans each have 48 chromosomes....so either we should look and act more like tobacco, or vice versa.....The only thing 98% of the dna being the same between monkeys and humans is that it shows a common creator...

But there are 2 ways of interpreting things, always...1. Fact, there is a Grand Canyon. Interpretation 1 is, millions of years with a bit of water trickeling through, or short period of time with lots of water.

There's only 1 fact...it exists...the rest is speculation....but evolutionists are quick to link the fact with the speculation in the same sentence.


----------



## Tim (Jan 4, 2012)

Consider this logical treatment:

Major premise: similar DNA indicates relationship
Minor premise: monkey and human DNA is similar
Conclusion: monkeys and humans are related

vs. 

Major premise: similar DNA indicates the same creator
Minor premise: monkey and human DNA is similar
Conclusion: monkeys and humans have the same creator

Both arguments are _valid_ (i.e., if both premises are true, the conclusion is true), but only one of them is a true argument. The major premise is that which is being disputed. Thus, _on its own_, the former argument _begs the question_ if there is no argument that establishes the truth of the major premise. 

And so on....


----------



## nwink (Jan 4, 2012)

I just found this AIG article on the subject: Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 4, 2012)

‘We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.’ Steve Jones, evolutionist.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 4, 2012)

I like Tim's approach - the major premise is either built on a material naturalist or a theistic set of presuppositions.

Some thoughts I had while considering this:

The material relationship between man and ape is strong.
The cognitive gap between man and ape is vast.
The spiritual chasm between man and ape is unbridgeable.


----------



## FedByRavens (Jan 4, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas


 Theres an entire list of things that are pretty close to our dna. If I'm not mistaken, I think starfish is one of them.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

CHECK THIS OUT: Evolution Refuted - Video Download - Answers Bookstore

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

CHECK THIS OUT: Evolution Refuted - Video Download - Answers Bookstore


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 4, 2012)

If humans can make a wheel and not have to reinvent it every time we want to build a vehicle, then I think we should be able to credit our Creator with being capable of creating genetic structures that serve more than one creature's physical design and sustenance? 

Besides, I like this argument too from JD,

The material relationship between man and ape is strong.
The cognitive gap between man and ape is vast.
The spiritual chasm between man and ape is unbridgeable.

Edit: I do not think that man is descended from apes, in light of God's special creation of Adam, but there's no reason these structures couldn't be getting formed out of the dust just like Adam's hands and eyes were.


----------



## Tim (Jan 4, 2012)

panta dokimazete said:


> I like Tim's approach - the major premise is either built on a material naturalist or a theistic set of presuppositions.
> 
> Some thoughts I had while considering this:
> 
> ...



Good point - once you bring up things such as culture, arts, industry, spirituality, etc., the differences should be apparent to everyone except those who choose to ignore them. These are differences not in degree, but in kind. We are a different kind of creature.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 4, 2012)

Well chimps and humans look pretty similar. Sharing 98% of DNA is one way of quantifying it. The problem with the argument is that there doesn't appear to be a way to establish what threshold of similarity establishes common ancestry.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jan 4, 2012)

Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%


----------



## seajayrice (Jan 4, 2012)

Monkey and human DNA 98% the same

That explains everything!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 4, 2012)

Joshua said:


> Check This Out! Evolution Refuted:
> 
> Genesis 2:7 _And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul._



This is the Puritan answer.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 4, 2012)

A man and a monkey are on an island and there was no food. So the man ate the monkey and the monkeys mother didn't care the man ate her offspring when the man made it home.


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 4, 2012)

We are the 2 percent!


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jan 4, 2012)

> We are the 2 percent!


----------

