I’ll be honest – I take issue with Darwinian evolution. I also take issue with agenda-driven junk science. My disbelief and skepticism would place me in the naughty corner of the scientific establishment’s hallowed halls, but fortunately I have nothing to do with them on a professional level.
One of the pop-science claims that has been flushed out of the hallowed halls’ toilets and into the mass media sewer is the claim that humans and Chimpanzees share 98.5% of identical DNA. Who cares, right? Maybe God just had to make a few tweaks from chimp DNA to get people. Seems like no big deal until you take a look at how much of a difference that really is.
The complete human genome, if unravalled from its natural rat’s nest orientation, would be roughly 2 to 3 meters in length. Let’s average that and assume about 7 feet. Now imagine a 7 foot string about 1/40,000th of the width of an average human hair. That’s 1/1000th the thickness of a spider’s web. We are talking thin here – so thin you can’t really imagine it.
Amazingly, in that tiny thread of data is contained roughly 3 BILLION “base pairs”. Let’s call them “characters”, or letters like in a book. But that number is incomprehensible, so imagine a stack of Bibles 841 thick: that is how long your 7 foot genome is per cell. 841 Bibles long per cell.
Even if we share 98.5% of our DNA with chimps, that still leaves 12.6 Bibles’ lengths of difference between the species. Not so trivial, eh? Try reading the Bible 12.6 times fast.
There’s more. These figures are very generously estimated. I recently got into a Quora argument about genetic vs genomic DNA with some random internet stranger. He accused the “creationists” of distorting the information and outright lying to the public. However, the truth seems to be the opposite.
The evolutionists have done the obfuscating. According to the (admittedly biased) opposing views (Answers in Genesis), there is a maximum of 70% similarity between chimps and humans. What this means is that they essentially throw out a whole bunch of DNA as being irrelevant for comparison. Those who tout the 98.6% figure ignore small variations, gaps, and use a chimp DNA organized on a sort of human-modeled “scaffold”. It would be the equivalent of taking two sets of computer code by taking chunks of already similar code and reorganizing one of them to match the other. Who is to say that the order doesn’t matter?
According to Chimp-Human DNA Similarity: What Does It Really Mean?, by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, the following mistakes are made by the promoters of 98.6%:
- “repeated sequences are ignored”
- “only sections that “align naturally” are compared,”
- “and the only differences noted are single base-pair substitutions.”
70% is 252 Bibles’ length of difference. This includes so-called “non coding” genes. Most of the genome is a mystery to geneticists. Something like 99% of the code is dedicated to gene expression – telling a cell that it is skin, as opposed to lung, per se. There is no telling the dramatic difference such genes can make if tweaked or reordered, but I can make an estimate: 30% difference equals the difference between an chimp and a human… 2
The main takeaway here should be that there are two sides to every story. Obviously, both sides here have their own agendas, but I find the evolutionists to be much more cavalier and assuming with the data than are the creationists. More and more it looks like comparing chimps and humans is akin to comparing apples and oranges.