The "99 %" Genetic Similarity Myth Is Dead?

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I did not know that the 99% similarity assertion had been "busted".

Evolutionists Admit That Humans and Chimps Are Not Genetically Similar

A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought", they report the following:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

The biologist based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent. i

New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. ii

.............

But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.

Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common design," i.e. Creation.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Gee, compared to the fantastic story of Evolution, believing that God could create a fish for the purpose of rescuing Jonah from the depths of the sea seems pretty tame.
 

Theoretical

Puritan Board Professor
I did not know that the 99% similarity assertion had been "busted".
Maybe I'm just weird, but whenever I've heard of the extraordinary genetic similarity between humans and any other creature, it makes me MORE inclined to believe in the God of Creation. From my standpoint, it shows the power and quality of his handiwork that huge portions of the same genetic blueprint can be responsible for the development of so many of God's creatures, humans included.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Don't knock the similarities too hard. I know some academic programs that, according to legend, don't use TAs but rather train "Grading Monkeys" who are trained to write A-. If you hand them the paper upside down, they write a V witha line next to it. Saves money for the school. So, given that, there are at least some similarities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top