[Heartlander]

Maybe from:
Nature (Feb. 15, 2001) by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (IHGSC). Their findings will be published as part of the May 18 issue of the journal Science, online at the Science Express

But it is being debated and refuted here

[VadeRetro]

Even taking the original report and ignoring the refutation, there were never any "identical genes." The argument is over a hypothesized gene transfer to some early ancestral vertebrate to explain similarities above the chance level.

The event has to be old, not a recent cross-jumping of bacterial DNA. That's to allow time for the organism to evolve useful, integrated functions for the new genes. If it were new, the introduced material would almost certainly be out in the "junk" or it would be too harmful to be inherited.

When you get what Hendrix claimed, identical functional genes that defy the tree of life, then you have a scoop.

[VadeRetro]

I can't help but notice, too, that Hendrix lifts, with distortion in his favor, only the claimed oddity and not the non-magical mechanism proposed for same. He thus forces the reader to guess what he is talking about and attempts to force the conclusion of "special creation." IOW, he shops for miracles to stump the dummies with, pumps a little extra shazzam into the miracle ("similar" becomes "identical"), and throws away the non-magical context.

I'm not impressed with that.

[Nebullis]

It turns out that some of the genes from bacterial origin are from ancient endosymbiant events. Cytoplasmic DNA-containing organelles, such as mitochondria have transferred some of their DNA to the host nucleus. Other examples of prokaryote to eukaryote lateral gene transfer exist, but most of them are from transfer events at the unicellular level. It's much easier to imagine how that can take place.

The fact remains that there are sequences shared by humans and bacteria which are not shared by other multicellular organisms--at least, those compared thus far. Random gene loss can account for some of this and an increase in comparisons with other organisms show that the earlier large numbers, circa 200, were reduced because the genes did show up somewhere else, but, nevertheless, those sequences are present and only an extensively constructed phylogenetic tree will elucidate their origin.