One typical proof cited for Darwinian evolution is that chimpanzees and humans have very similar
If once the genomes have been compared the difference is shown to be just 4 percent, with 3 billion base pairs of
It is disingenuous to imply that the figures 98-99% genetic similarity between chimps and humans is incorrect and has been contradicted by a whole-genome comparison. As the source Ray used admits, those figures are derived from comparisons of coding
But since Ray and the authors of his sources—Answers in Genesis—would prefer to play the present-the-layman-with-really-big-numbers game, lets put his numbers in perspective to reveal the deception. Analysis of genetic variation among humans was previously limited to individual differences in nucleotides, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs); putting the total human genetic diversity around 99.9%. In the past few years, however, researchers have found that non-
Some critics also question the scientific basis for assuming that similar
Firstly, that analogy is fundamentally inapplicable to living organisms for a few simple reasons; neither airplanes nor watches nor paintings reproduce, witch rules out the possibility that their configurations are the result of decent with modification. Living organisms, on the other hand, do reproduce. They also pass on a large amount of the information that makes their configuration what it is to their offspring. The third critical trait of living things is that there is a consistent increase in variability caused by mutation from each generation to the next. And finally, living organisms exist in populations for finite amounts of time, and must stave off their demise while competing for limited resources. All of these principles together have an interesting result. As new variation is introduced by mutation, modifications to proteins, such as the way the catalyze reactions and configure to form anatomical structures, that allow for more efficient performance of tasks in the organisms’ environment, the organisms become either more or less able to both survive and compete for resources (thrive) in their environment. The measure of this efficiency is called fitness. Configurations that increase fitness make the organism more able—and thus more likely—to make significant contributions to their populations’ gene pools. This increases the frequencies of the alleles with those configurations, with time. Likewise, the frequencies of alleles with configurations that decrease fitness decrease, with time. This process is called natural selection. Since the differences between species are observed to be structural and functional modifications that increase fitness in the organisms’ environments, this is powerful evidence that these differences were the result of decent with modification caused by mutation and natural selection.
But now let’s back up a bit. Ray is saying that similarities in
My throurough explaination of the endogenous retroviral evidence and the L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase (GULOP) example of the pseudogene evidence can be found here:
To sum up this evidence; it is the corroboratory distributional and mutational nested hierarchies of ERVs and pseudogenes necessitate common ancestry; which in turn necessitates the past presents of an ancestral species. The ‘same gene, same designer’ argument falls flat on its face.
As explained above, the specific sections of similar and dissimilar
To the question of whether sharing 96 percent of our genetic make-up with chimps makes us 96 percent chimp, evolutionist Steven Jones, a renowned British geneticist, humorously commented, “We also share about 50% of our
Bringing up the ~50% genetic similarity between humans and bananas is ironic, as it exposes the flaw in the first paragraph of this section; similarities between the coding regions of genomes says far more about overall similarity than including regions that are not expressed. As mentioned in that paragraph, the difference between chimp and human coding regions is 98-99%.
Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." Nature 437.7055 (2005): 69-87. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html>.
Fischer, A., V. Wiebe, S. Paabo, and M. Przeworski. "Evidence for a Complex Demographic History of Chimpanzees." Molecular Biology and Evolution 21.5 (2004): 799-808. <http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/5/799>.
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. "Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome." Nature 409.6822 (2001): 860-921. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html>.
J. Craig Venter Institute. "First Diploid Human Genome Sequence Shows We're Surprisingly Different." Science Daily. 4 Sept. 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904072204.htm>.
Kaessmann, H., V. Wiebe, and S. Pääbo. "Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees." Science 286.5442 (1999): 1159-162. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5442/1159>.
Levy, S., et al. "The diploid genome sequence of an individual human." PLoS Biology 5.E254 (2007). <http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254>.
"Genetic Variation Program." National Human Genome Research Institute. 13 May 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. <http://www.genome.gov/10001551#1>. <http://www.genome.gov/10001551#1>.
Stone, A. C., R. C. Griffiths, S. L. Zegura, and M. F. Hammer. "High levels of Y-chromosome nucleotide diversity in the genus Pan." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99.1 (2002): 43-48. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117511/?tool=pubmed>.
10. David A. Dewitt, Ph.D., “Chimp Genome Sequence Very Different From Man,” September 5, 2005 <ww.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp>.
11. Don Batten, “Human/chimp DNA Similarity,” Creation, vol. 19, iss. 1, December 1996, pp. 21–22 <www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/dna.asp>.
12. Steve Jones, interview on The Science Show, broadcast on ABC Radio, January 1, 2002 <www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm>.