Are We Really 98% Chimp?

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, FriendofJonathan said:

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. ♥ 

Yup including the 10,000 species that humans host in and on the humanbody, we are walking ecosystems.

Edited March 28 by BeyondET

[FriendofJonathan]

16 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Yup including the 10,000 species that humans host in and on the humanbody, we are walking ecosystems.

So true.

I sometimes wonder how many of those tiny six-legged parasites  I'm destroying when I rub my eyes after good nights sleep.  

[BeyondET]

42 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

So true.

I sometimes wonder how many of those tiny six-legged parasites  I'm destroying when I rub my eyes after good nights sleep.  

Probably to many to count lol.

One particular little bug is the demodex mite that most everyone host for life. Which has 8 legs and lives inside the human hair follicle. Related to spiders and ticks. They come out at night while you sleep, mate and eat then crawl back into our hair follicles.

It's a wild and crazy world on the humanbody.

[BeyondET]

These five equal a healthy environment, but when skin or eye infections crop up. It's usually because the ecosystem gets out of balance and other pathogens are able to invade the environment on the humanbody and take over.

 

1. The Ocular Microbiome:

Core Microbiome:

The eye's microbiome is a community of microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses, that reside on the ocular surface. 

Key Bacteria:

The core microbiome primarily consists of:

Staphylococcus 

Corynebacterium 

Streptococcus 

Propionibacterium 

Viruses:

Torque teno virus (TTV) is also a common resident of the healthy ocular surface. 

Edited March 28 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

Since there is no objective, agreed-upon method for measuring genome similarity, I find percentage comparisons between species to be logically spurious and overly simplistic - and heavily prone to bias. 

For example:

- Are we doing a whole (base-to-base) genome comparison, or only comparing protein coding sections? And what about functional, non-coding, transcription factors?

- Are different amounts of chromosomes between the compared species counted as differences, or are we only comparing genetic information content - and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not?

- What if one species has one copy of a gene, but the other species has many copies of the same gene - is that a similarity or a difference?

- What if both species have the same gene, but in different positions on the chromosome, or on different chromosomes - similarity or difference?

- What if a gene that performs the same function is coded differently between the compared species? How much code variance is permitted before the distinction becomes a difference, rather than a similarity - and why this amount?

- What if both species have the same functional gene, but in different versions (e.g. both have the same gene for producing hair color, but each species has different hair color options) - is that counted as a similarity or difference?

etc.

We can discuss variances of intron/exon structures, haplotypes, telomeres, antibody production, epigenetics etc., etc.

There are simply far too many conflating factors for any percentage comparison claim to have any useful (rationally objective) implication.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/26/2025 at 10:36 AM, Ogner said:

The fact that humans and apes are both mammals means nothing. Here’s a list of other mammals:

Blue whale, Orca, African elephant, Platypus, Armadillo, Pangolin, Narwhal

What does that prove?

DNA analyses tell us that the rest of them, compared to a platypus means that they have a common ancestor after the last common ancestor of eutherians and monotremes diverged.    Which confirms other data from fossil record, anatomy, physiology, etc.

It says that blue whales, orcas and narwhals have a common ancestor after cetaceans diverged from other eutherians.

It says that Pangolins have a common ancestor with the carnivora, after that group diverged from other eutherians.

It says that Armadillos evolved from a common ancestor with other xenarthrans after the xenarthrans evolved from the laurasiatheria.   And it says elephants have a common ancestor with Afrotherians after that group evolved from other eutherians.

Which is a lot of useful information, isn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

35 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Since there is no objective, agreed-upon method for measuring genome similarity, I find percentage comparisons between species to be logically spurious and overly simplistic - and heavily prone to bias. 

For example:

- Are we doing a whole (base-to-base) genome comparison, or only comparing protein coding sections? And what about functional, non-coding, transcription factors?

Good question.    It would seem that from a strict genetics POV, comparing protein coding sections would be most useful.    Non-coding DNA, particularly those which do not have other functions, would more rapidly diverge from an original ancestor.    And the data confirms this.  

38 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Are different amounts of chromosomes between the compared species counted as differences, or are we only comparing genetic information content - and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not?

Different numbers of chromosomes don't mean as much, since breakages and fusions are a documented fact.   

Domestic horses have 64 chromosomes, whereas Prezwalski's Horses have 66.    However, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.   Humans have 2 less chromosomes than other apes, although there is evidence that early Homo and chimpanzees were interfertile:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/is-it-possible-for-humans-and-chimpanzees-to-interbreed

45 minutes ago, Tristen said:

and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not?

Good question.   The answer seems to be that genetic content is more accurate a measure of evolutionary relatedness than is chromosome number.

45 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What if both species have the same gene, but in different positions on the chromosome, or on different chromosomes - similarity or difference?

Barbara McClintock got her Nobel for the discovery of transposons (jumping genes) which is a known phenomenon in plants and animals.

48 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What if a gene that performs the same function is coded differently between the compared species? How much code variance is permitted before the distinction becomes a difference, rather than a similarity - and why this amount?

Almost all of them are.   Even super constant genes like the gene for cytochrome C varies a little.   I believe that humans and monkeys have one amino acid difference in a protein with a molecular weight of 884.9 g/mol

50 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What if both species have the same functional gene, but in different versions (e.g. both have the same gene for producing hair color, but each species has different hair color options) - is that counted as a similarity or difference?

These are referred to as alleles, different versions of the same gene.   If such an allele is unique to one population, it would be considered a "difference" for what that's worth.    The EPAS1 mutation, found in almost all Tibetans is such a case, although it is rarely found in some Han Chinese.

The Bajau "diving gene" is another such case of an allele that is both useful but practically unique to one population.

55 minutes ago, Tristen said:

There are simply far too many conflating factors for any percentage comparison claim to have any useful (rationally objective) implication.

The fact that we can use DNA analysis to confirm the phylogenies obtained by fossil record, anatomy, physiology, and other data, indicates that it's a very useful method.   In fact, it confirms the "tree of life" first noted by Linnaeus long before anyone realized why that was the case.

 

[angels4u]

On 3/25/2025 at 6:25 PM, Ogner said:

You’ve probably heard the claim: humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA, meaning we’re just 2% apart. It sounds neat, scientific, and convincing—until you dig into what it really means. The truth is, this 2% figure is more absurd than it seems. Let’s break it down with a simple analogy: imagine a Chinese scholar trying to decode two English books, armed only with the alphabet.

A Chinese Scholar and Two Books
Picture this: a Chinese scholar who knows the English alphabet (A to Z) but doesn’t understand the language. He picks up "Macbeth" by Shakespeare, a massive book with millions of letters. He meticulously copies every letter into a new notebook—every "A," "T," "H," "E," everything. He doesn’t know what the words mean, but he recognizes it’s written in English. After flipping through, he understands just 2% of the book—say, the cover and title page: "Macbeth, Shakespeare". The rest—murders, witches, fate—is a mystery. He says, "I’ve decoded it!" because he’s got all the letters down.
Next, he grabs Shakespeare’s "Hamlet." Same deal: he copies every letter into another notebook, sees it’s in English, and grasps 2%—the cover again: "Hamlet, Shakespeare." The plot—ghosts, revenge, madness—flies over his head. He’s got the alphabet and the letters, but the meaning? Barely a sliver.

Comparing the Covers
Now, he compares his two notebooks. He notices the covers—"Macbeth, Shakespeare" and "Hamlet, Shakespeare"—share a lot: both in English, both have "author William Shakespeare," "publisher Lord God," "first edition". He calculates: "Hey, these covers are 98% alike!" So, he concludes, "The difference between 'Macbeth' and 'Hamlet' is just 2%—they’re practically the same book!"
Sounds ridiculous, right? Two epic stories, one about a Scottish king and the other a Danish prince, reduced to "2% apart" because their covers look similar. That’s exactly what’s happening with the DNA comparison between humans and chimps.

DNA: Letters Without Meaning
DNA is like those books—3.2 billion "letters" (A, T, C, G) long. Scientists have copied it all out, letter by letter, for both humans and chimps. They understand about 2% of it—the genes, the "cover" that codes for proteins like eyes or muscles. The other 98%? That’s the "non-coding" DNA, once called "junk," now known as "switches" that control how the genes work—brain size, speech, everything that makes us human. But here’s the kicker: they don’t fully understand what those 98% do. It’s like our scholar copying "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" but not getting the stories.
When they say "2% difference," they’re comparing the bits they understand—genes and some "similar" non-coding parts. They line up the covers and say, "Look, 98% match!" But the real difference, including those mysterious 98%, could be much bigger—some, like James Tour in his 2025 talk "Evolution vs. Evidence," argue it’s 13–19% when you count insertions, deletions, and rearrangements. That’s not a tweak; it’s a rewrite.

The Absurdity of It All
Imagine our scholar claiming he’s "decoded" both books because he knows the alphabet and the covers. Then he says, "They’re 98% the same!"—ignoring that one’s about a power-hungry thane and the other’s a brooding prince. That’s the absurdity of the 2% DNA claim. Scientists know the "alphabet" (A, T, C, G) and 2% of the "plot" (genes), but the 98% "switches" that make humans and chimps so different? Mostly a blank page. Saying "2% difference" based on that is like judging two books by their covers and calling it science.

What It Really Means
This 2% isn’t a measure of how close we are to chimps—it’s a cherry-picked stat from the parts scientists can read. The real gap, hidden in that 98% they don’t grasp, could be a chasm—13%, 19%, maybe more. It’s not just letters; it’s meaning. Our scholar wouldn’t dare say "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" are nearly identical based on covers alone. Yet, that’s what the 2% DNA claim does—flattens humans and chimps into a fake similarity, ignoring the vast, unread story within.
So, next time you hear "we’re 98% chimp," picture that Chinese scholar with his notebooks. He’s got the letters, but the books? He hasn’t got a clue. Neither do we about DNA—not yet.

 

Do Chimps and Humans Share a Common Ancestor?

by Ken Ham on February 10, 2023

Last week we reran an excellent article by Dr. Georgia Purdom on the myth that humans and chimpanzees share 98–99% of their DNA. This false idea has been repeated so many times that nearly everyone’s heard it, and sadly, many people have wrongly accepted it. Shockingly, even some who claim to be young-earth creationists believe this nonsense (but, as you’ll see in the sobering series we’ve been running, such ideas are better called young-earth evolution). Now, I don’t lightly say that the myth of human-chimp DNA similarity is “nonsense”—from a scientific (as well as a biblical perspective): it really is nothing but nonsense!

The 98–99% number exists because of the way the chimp-human DNA comparisons (which started with evolutionary presuppositions) were done. And that’s why we use the term young-earth “evolution,” as there is an accepting (perhaps unwittingly) of a number of the evolutionist presuppositions in the creationist camp. You see, to get that figure, scientists only compared the chimp and human DNA that “aligns,” that is, sections of the DNA that are very similar (though not identical). And in those “aligned” sections, scientists are typically only counting one type of difference. They completely ignore the aligned sections that have no corresponding match and the unaligned DNA that has no match whatsoever with chimps—which together totals at least 20%! And even that doesn’t take into consideration the differences at the gene expression level!

All in all, new research suggests human and chimp DNA is only about 80% similar (and if that still seems like a lot, consider that the remaining 20% represents 600 million differences)—a far cry from the 98–99% touted by some.

All in all, new research suggests human and chimp DNA is only about 80% similar (and if that still seems like a lot, consider that the remaining 20% represents 600 million differences)—a far cry from the 98–99% touted by some.

No, chimps and humans aren’t nearly identical—and that’s not surprising, because we’re not related. Chimps belong to the great ape kind and humans were created distinct from the animals, in the very image of God—Adam from dust and Eve from his side—and given dominion over creation . . including the great apes (Genesis 1:27–28)!

I encourage you to read Dr. Purdom’s article (and the others in the ongoing Young-Earth “Evolution” series) for more details, as this is a very common argument evolutionists throw out there to convince others, especially young people, that human evolution is true.

Or, if you want a much more in-depth, technical look at this question, consider the brand-new resource Chimps and Humans: A Geneticist Discovers DNA Evidence That Challenges Evolution by Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins. Dr. Tomkins has a background in the fields of genetics and genomics, and in his book, he analyzes the data and discovers that secular scientists consistently tailor their research to fit the evolutionary narrative. He presents his own research demonstrating that instead of a 98–99% similarity, human-chimp genome matches are closer to 80%—results that secular scientists are beginning to echo. In other words, the more that DNA sequencing technologies improve, the worse it gets for the evolutionary worldview.

As Dr. Tomkins shows, not only are the human and chimp genomes not almost identical, they are too far apart to make a common evolutionary ancestor even remotely plausible.

Christians have every reason to believe the Genesis account that God uniquely created humans in his own image around 6,000 years ago. Yes, observational science confirms the Bible’s account of origins. You can find this new resource on our online store at AnswersBookstore.com.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2023/02/10/do-chimps-and-humans-share-common-ancestor/?srsltid=AfmBOopYWFY8zc3BARyCalzmG0aBTOeVIG2SZpq0gW19ko4jtTWfBjsm

[The Barbarian]

On 3/28/2025 at 8:54 AM, Ogner said:

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).

That's not new.   You might want to read Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful, to learn about how some of it works.

Turns out, there is no structure in biology that could not have evolved via random mutation and natural selection.    Since no one can quite define what "consciousness" is, not hard to understand why such things aren't yet completely explainable in terms of physical processes.  

For a Christian, of course, this is not an objection at all.

On 3/28/2025 at 8:54 AM, Ogner said:

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

Not entirely, IMO.    The mind may be an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, but that's not all it is.

On 3/28/2025 at 8:54 AM, Ogner said:

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),

In fact, the reason most mammals have five digits has to do with the length of time it takes specific cell lines to move across the apex of the limb bud.   This is, for example, why large dogs tend to have extra digits.

Now, the point is that this is not at all like design, which is what limited creatures do.   It is very much like true creation, which only God can do.    We do not properly respect God and His power and wisdom by demoting Him to a mere "designer."     It is now known that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for very complex problems.    Turns out, God had it right the first time.

On 3/28/2025 at 8:54 AM, Ogner said:

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.

This is wrong, too.   The house is entirely encoded within the blueprints.    I suppose one might imagine some kind of epiphenomena resulting from a house, but I don't see what that would be.    I would say that this is the result of confusing a created system with a designed one.

 

Edited Saturday at 10:37 PM by The Barbarian