Posted on 11/15/2011 7:37:50 AM PST by fishtank
DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Nov. 15, 2011
Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.
Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.1 Yet humans don't look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists' efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:
However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology.2
"Indels" refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.
Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the "substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species."1 McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:
Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.3
The team's analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not "junk DNA," and they are critical to the formation of each living creature.4 Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:
Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions [including indels]," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.5
The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different!6 It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?
Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.
References
Polavarapu, N. et al. 2011. Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation. Mobile DNA. 2 (1): 13.
Criswell, D. 2005. Genomics at ICR. Acts & Facts. 34 (7). "Junk DNA" Defines Differences Between Humans and Chimps. Georgia Tech news release, October 25, 2011.
Thomas, B. 2010. Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 16-17.
Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12. Genes comprise only 1.5 percent of the human "genome." See International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 409 (6822): 860-921.
Evolutionists say that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor six million years ago. Then, two million years ago, modern humans supposedly diverged from a (still unidentified) ape-like ancestor. The difference equals four million years. Further, 98 percent of the human genome's 2.9 billion DNA base pairs, roughly corresponding to its regulatory DNA, equals 2.8 billion base pairs. Therefore, evolution requires the belief that man emerged after 2.8 billion precisely placed DNA bases somehow appeared, and even more ape-specifying regulatory DNA disappeared, in only four million years, even though experiments have not found this kind of DNA appearance and disappearance in today's genomes.
Creationists conflate the 99% genetic DNA similarity and the 95% or so similarity between genomic DNA, knowing the woeful lack of education on average of their target audience - they are pretty confident the dupes of their disinformation will not catch on.
They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is “regulatory” and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.
I am not thrilled with the way the georgia tech study is quoted and surrounded by creation scientist quotes.
I am willing to bet the findings of the scientists that actually performed the study differ significantly from those of the creation scientists.
-C L Emerson
Not true!!!
I know for a fact a cheeky Kenyan bastard running around the States is a direct descendent from chimps.
Genisis 30:That, Biblically, is how you breed colored sheep.37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Really? I hadn't realized this was a specialty, or that the Bible was a text on genetics.
Doncha recall how The Trickster Jacob used Biblical genetics and sticks to breed speckled goats?
That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.
Yep. I remember hearing a few years back that our DNA is closer to a cockroach’s DNA than to a monkey’s DNA. Well, now I understand Democrats.
Whoever you heard that from took you for a fool.
Were they mutagenic sticks?/s
“That’s the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.”
I’ve seen similar distortions in 200 page EPA reports where the executive summary (the only thing anyone reads) draws one conclusion but the data in the rest of the document supports the opposite conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.