Are We Really 98% Chimp?

[Ogner]

4 hours ago, Who me said:

A comparison and evaluation of the reports of drawers analysis  shows that at most there is only 33% similarity between humans and chimps.

See:-https://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-literature

 There’s no consensus among scientists. The data on the difference in human-chimp DNA varies from 2% to 33%. And that’s only based on sequenced genes, meaning just counting and comparing "letters," without knowing the "language" of DNA, without understanding the "words," without understanding the whole "plot." We know the "syntax" (nucleotide sequence), but not the "semantics" (regulation) or the "plot" (functions). So, we can’t even properly count and compare the order of "letters." If scientists can’t even count right—with numbers jumping from 2% to 33%—what can we even talk about? How can they claim this proves evolution? It’s all empty talk because they don’t understand the "language" of DNA. 

[Ogner]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   Scientists see a change in allele frequencies in populations, and note that this often leads to improved fitness and even speciation.    That's evolution, and it's an observed fact.    Common descent has been confirmed by genetics, by numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record and by a host of other evidence.

Since quantum events often cause mutations those are indeed irreducibly random.    Natural selection, however, is the antithesis of randomness.   That was Darwin's great discovery.

IDers call it "front loading."    Creation of a universe in which such wonders can evolve.    And as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God can use contingency just as surely as necessity to effect His will.

Since the function of DNA was made clear, we know how it works.

Quantum events are truly random.   Would you like to learn how we know?   But as St. Tom says, that's not a problem for God.

No, I'm pointing out that it demonstrates common descent of humans and other apes.   Evolution is easily proven by observation.    It's an observed fact, like gravity.

It is.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Turns out, non-coding DNA is a normal source of new genes via mutation.    They can also evolved by mutation to other functions.

That wouldn't explain homology.    There's no reason why whales should have the same limb bones we do; it's just that mammals have a basic set of structures that evolve to different uses.     Humans have some really inefficient structures, because we so recently evolved bipedal movement.   So humans have lots of problems with feet, knees, hips,and lower backs. 

One of the important clues for us is the fact that evolutionary processes are more efficient for complex problems than design.    Engineers are even copying evolutionary change to solve some of those problems.    It turns out that God once again knows best.

 

You say the similarity of bones in whales and humans can’t be explained by the Creator’s intelligent design because evolution explains it—mammals had a common ancestor, and their bones changed for different needs. But I can say the same: this similarity can’t be explained by evolution because it points to the Creator’s intelligent design. He made us with a similar "template,"  like a programmer writing different programs.  The very fact that genes have been sequenced already suggests intelligent design—it’s  like a meticulously structured code someone wrote with a specific order. If scientists don’t know the "language" of DNA, how can they prove it’s evolution and not the Creator’s program? 
 

[Marathoner]

"Are We Really 98% Chimp?"

No. Rather, we share 98.8% of our genome in common with chimpanzees. We share 90% of our genome in common with felines. That doesn't therefore make us "90% cat," does it?

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

You say the similarity of bones in whales and humans can’t be explained by the Creator’s intelligent design

No, I'm pointing out that it's entirely consistent with evolution.    When people downgrade the Creator to a mere "designer" they are assuming that He is limited in the way His creatures are limited.   Homology shows evolutionary change and common descent, not mere design.

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

But I can say the same: this similarity can’t be explained by evolution because it points to the Creator’s intelligent design.

No.   If that was true, humans wouldn't have suboptimal feet, knees, hips, and lower backs.   

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

 The very fact that genes have been sequenced already suggests intelligent design—it’s  like a meticulously structured code someone wrote with a specific order.

If that was true, we wouldn't have things like the broken GULO gene.    Nor would we have new genes that were evolved from non-coding DNA.    God's creation is evolutionary change , not magical poofing.

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

If scientists don’t know the "language" of DNA

But since Watson, Crick and Franklin, we do know the language.  

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

how can they prove it’s evolution and not the Creator’s program? 

For example, we can show that it evolved slightly over time.   The genetic code is not quite universal, with some minor exceptions, in prokaryotes and bacterial-derived organelles like mitochondria.   The almost-universal code is powerful evidence for common descent of all living things on Earth.

 

 

[Ogner]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

But since Watson, Crick and Franklin, we do know the language.  

 

"You claim that Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the 'language' of DNA, but that’s a drastic oversimplification. In 1953, they deciphered DNA’s structure—the double helix—where nucleotides (A, T, G, C) bind through complementary base pairing (A-T, G-C). This explained replication: strands separate, each serving as a template for synthesis. 

In the 1960s, scientists cracked how three nucleotides (a codon) specify one amino acid — like figuring out which key combinations on a typewriter produce which letters. But this is just the alphabet—the 'spelling rules' of DNA. But ‘reading’ life’s entire book — understanding why humans have consciousness while chimps don’t — remains beyond our grasp.". 

The true ‘language’ of DNA, however, involves far more:

Syntax – How noncoding 98.5% (enhancers, silencers, introns) regulate genes, turning them on/off in specific tissues.

Semantics – Why nearly identical genes function differently in humans vs. chimps despite ~??% sequence overlap.

Pragmatics – How DNA interacts with epigenetic marks (methylation, histones) and environmental signals.

Matching syntax (A,T,G,C) while ignoring pragmatics (epigenetics, regulatory networks) is like comparing two computers by their hardware specs alone — while overlooking the difference in firmware and software. They may share the same chips, but one runs Windows and the other Linux OS.

The ENCODE Project (2012) revealed 80% of the genome is biochemically active, yet its purpose often remains unknown. For example, noncoding DNA mutations link to cancer and autism—but we don’t grasp how they disrupt the genome’s ‘grammar.’
Non-coding DNA regulates genes through promoters (where transcription starts) and enhancers (which boost gene expression), but scientists don’t understand how: why is a gene active in the brain but not the liver?

Watson and Crick uncovered the alphabet, not the language. Today, we read DNA like an ancient manuscript: we recognize scattered words but miss the style, plot, and author’s intent."

Edited March 28 by Ogner

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

"You claim that Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the 'language' of DNA, but that’s a drastic oversimplification. In 1953, they deciphered DNA’s structure—the double helix—where nucleotides (A, T, G, C) bind through complementary base pairing (A-T, G-C). This explained replication: strands separate, each serving as a template for synthesis. 

In the 1960s, scientists cracked how three nucleotides (a codon) specify one amino acid — like figuring out which key combinations on a typewriter produce which letters. But this is just the alphabet—the 'spelling rules' of DNA. But ‘reading’ life’s entire book — understanding why humans have consciousness while chimps don’t — remains beyond our grasp.". 

Like the number of fingers you have, there is no place in DNA code that codes for consciousness.   It is not merely an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, but that is one of the things it is.    You're looking in the wrong place.

And your confusion about this point is at the heart of your misunderstanding about the genetic code.

[Ogner]

57 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Like the number of fingers you have, there is no place in DNA code that codes for consciousness.   It is not merely an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, but that is one of the things it is.    You're looking in the wrong place.

And your confusion about this point is at the heart of your misunderstanding about the genetic code.

You’re conflating two different issues. I never claimed consciousness is ‘coded in DNA’ like a software script. My point was about the insufficiency of nucleotide-level comparisons (syntax) to explain biological complexity (pragmatics).

Yes, consciousness emerges from the nervous system — but that system’s structure, plasticity, and function are themselves products of:

Gene regulation (e.g., FOXP2 shaping neural circuits for language),

Epigenetic cascades (prenatal environment affecting brain development),

Noncoding DNA (90% of human-chimp differences lie here, altering neurogenesis timing).

DNA isn’t the ‘code for consciousness’ — it’s the context-dependent scaffold that makes it possible. Ignoring this is like attributing Windows’ functionality solely to its CPU, ignoring its OS architecture."

Your fingers analogy actually proves my point. No, DNA doesn’t ‘code for five fingers’ — but it encodes:

Hox genes (positioning limb buds),

Sonic hedgehog (gradients for digit patterning),

Noncoding elements (why we don’t have wings).

Similarly, while DNA doesn’t ‘store’ consciousness, it builds the brain’s unique wiring (e.g., human-specific ARHGAP11B increasing cortical neurons). Dismissing this as ‘looking in the wrong place’ is like saying ‘The blueprint isn’t the house!’ — true, but the house can’t exist without it.

[BeyondET]

On 3/27/2025 at 4:59 AM, Ogner said:

 I believe my analogy holds, and here’s why: even a small difference of 13–19% in DNA can radically change its "meaning," just as a tiny change in a book can completely alter its story—sometimes even flipping the meaning to the opposite.
For example, consider the question: How do you think Pilate’s wife asked for Barabbas or Jesus? In the original Greek text, a single particle can change the entire meaning of the passage. Another example: What were the Jewish leaders, high priests, and elders envious of? The single word "envy" in the text creates so much confusion showing how one word can shift the understanding of an entire narrative.

Now, in our analogy, we’re talking about a 13–19% difference between human and chimp DNA. At first glance, 13–19% might seem small, but it’s actually a massive gap—it’s not just one or two words. It’s 400–600 million nucleotides, and in our book analogy, those nucleotides are like letters. This isn’t a single word, a single page, or even a single chapter. It’s not even one book, like a Gospel within the Bible. Let’s break it down with the Bible as an example, using the King James Version (KJV) for consistency:
The Gospel of Matthew: about 97,000 letters.

The Gospel of Mark: about 58,000 letters.

The Gospel of Luke: about 104,000 letters.

The Gospel of John: about 78,000 letters.

Adding them up: 97,000 + 58,000 + 104,000 + 78,000 = 337,000 letters. The entire Bible (KJV) has approximately 3,566,480 letters. So, the four Gospels make up (337,000 ÷ 3,566,480) × 100 ≈ 9.4% of the Bible. By a similar calculation, the entire New Testament accounts for about 22.3% of the Bible. That means a 13–19% difference in DNA is equivalent to 9.4–22.3% of the Bible’s text.
Now, imagine removing 9.4–22.3% of the Bible—say, all four Gospels or even the entire New Testament. The unified story and meaning of the Bible would be completely lost. Yet, with the Bible, we know the language it’s written in. We can read and understand not only the meaning of the words but also the overarching plot. Even then, there are still disagreements in interpreting the text and the Bible as a whole due to small nuances.
In the case of DNA, however, we don’t even know the language, the meaning of the "words," or the overall "plot." We’re still deciphering how DNA works—its "syntax" (the sequence of nucleotides) is known, but its "semantics" (how it’s regulated) and "narrative" (the biological functions it produces) remain largely unclear. So, counting the sequence of letters in DNA, without understanding the language, and then claiming humans are 98% chimp is misleading. On top of that, the comparison isn’t even fully accurate letter by letter—it’s not like the books match page for page. A 13–19% difference means entire sections, equivalent to whole books like the Gospels (9.4%), are different or missing, completely changing the "story" of the DNA.
That’s why my analogy stands: a 13–19% difference isn’t small—it’s a chasm that can fundamentally alter the meaning, just as a single word or particle can change the interpretation of a biblical text. 

The Bible needs to be understood, not just have its letters counted. Similarly, with DNA, we need to understand it, not just count its letters.  Can you imagine what biblical studies would look like if scholars could only count letters Bible?

 

Do you have a real time example of the 13% to 19% radically change in DNA, alters things entirely?

[Deborah_]

On 3/26/2025 at 3:36 PM, Ogner said:

Sequencing genes = Sequencing text.

It’s like a Chinese scholar realizing that what’s in front of him isn’t just a random jumble of letters—they’re arranged in a precise order, forming an actual book, not meaningless scribbles. That realization—that there’s a structured text rather than chaos—is what sequencing means.

But here’s the catch: the scholar still doesn’t grasp the meaning of the book. At best, he understands  2% of it—essentially just the title on the cover.

Not really. We already know what amino acids each group of three nucleotides codes for. We already know the amino acid sequences for thousands of proteins. So it's not difficult to recognise chimp haemoglobin or earthworm digestive enzymes or whatever.

[FriendofJonathan]

It is a fact that man shares common genetic codes with all living organisms.  This is further proof of creator God, and that God designed each organism in a unique way to serve its unique purpose in God's creation.  Thank you,  God. ♥