Another Look at Genetic "Evidence" for Human Evolution

I found a great video in which a scientist is lecturing on the merits of the conclusion that humans and chimpanzees are 99.5% the same. He draws different conclusions based on the available data, and considering that number in percentage of simularity in human and chimp DNA is not being confirmed in other more current studies I think that it's not tenable to base the "reality" of macro evolution in general or human evolution in particular on this evidence. Listen to what Dr. Dr Richard Buggs said:




Philip Cunningham, who posted the video, wrote are really good summary point. I will paste it below:

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level. Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that chimpanzees should have the same 'rights' as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless 'junk DNA'. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This 'copy number variation' causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or 'scaffold') when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.

======================================================

Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent

http://www.creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent

excerpt:

If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are (only) 29 percent identical.

=======================================================================

Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp

excerpt:

However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations' a problem referred to as 'Haldane's dilemma.' This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

========================================================

To dramatically underscore the fantasy land Darwinists live in, even evolutionists agree that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial (They say that most mutations are neutral, which is of no use to a Natural selection scenario, whereas Sanford, Spetner, Behe and others hold that all mutations studies at least have a "slightly negative effect)!!! (Genetic Entropy; Sanford 2005). Thus how in the world can you get from ape to man if you have no scientific demonstrated mechanism in which to do so? It is incredible that crushing facts as these are simply brushed aside as if they do not matter by evolutionists. To put it mildly this is not rigorous science, but rampant psuedo-science supported by your tax dollars!

Genesis 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I agree with Phillip. Putting this together with my post on the Dover Trial, I've got to ask how can evolution account for insertions, deletions, or in the case or Dr Miller's testimony during the Dover fiasco - chromosomes joining into one? Mutations are one thing. But stable mutations that bring on beneficial traits to an organism, that can be passed on to succeeding generations is quite another. Even if you grant that its possible, then you have to prove that is what happened and that it explains the differences between chimps and people. The other thing I found in Phillip's posts of great interest is that the 99.5% simularity of Chimps and Human DNA was first published in 1964, but none of the other teams' findings on the same subject have seen wide publication, nor what their data bodes for the theory of Evolution. Sounds like fear to me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I agree with the title of that book: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.