Why do we share 99% of DNA with apes?

Not open for further replies.
Claim: Human DNA is 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA, so, they have common ancestor.

What you need to know:

1- The claim itself is a logical fallacy (Jumping to conclusion) (Fallacy of Reification) as well as being inaccurate, read below.

2- Genetic information in all living creatures is encoded as a sequence of only 4 nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor. It is possible to explain this matter with an example; all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

3- We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans,1 so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

4- Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common creator. Why ?
Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument.

5- Humans and chimps share about 96 percent of their sequence.1 so the difference is about 120,000,000 base pairs , The similarity isn't something unexpected. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and structure. It is a mistake to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene.Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size.2

6- About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ along with a much smaller number of different chromosomal arrangements.1

7- As many as 3 million of the differences lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.1

8- Moreover, the basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living things. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living creatures, is very similar to that in humans.
For example:
  • Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. 3
  • Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans4
  • 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans 5-75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans6 , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 7
  • The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans 8
  • About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.9
9 - Telomeres in Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.10

10 - The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee. Page's team found that the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. The remainder of the chimp and human genomes are thought to differ in gene number by less than 1%. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome.

11- If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all.

- Biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 290-291)

Google Charles the second of Spain he's basically what you get after 16 generations of inbreeding

Yet somehow its plausible for two people to populate the earth lol ok
Google Charles the second of Spain he's basically what you get after 16 generations of inbreeding

Yet somehow its plausible for two people to populate the earth lol ok
It is plausible though. Depending on the two people, their close offspring might get a recessive mutation, but only a small part of recessive genes are deadly or cause a big disability. And after a while when the population gets big enough natural selection would eliminate any "bad mutations" to the point that they aren't dangerous.

Inbreeding has happened often in human history. There's a misconception that it will definitely cause a bad "defect", but that's more the case. It only increases the chance of a recessive mutation staying in a bloodline, and that can just as easily lead to a disability or to f.ex blue eyes. And the chance of this is lower than you think.


Bellum omnium contra omnes
Yeah, I learnt this in my Year 10 GCSE Science as I'm 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


During evolution, humans developed certain characteristics that gave them a better chance of survival. Multicellular organisms need ways for their cells to communicate, and there are a number of different means by which the body achieves this.

Evolution of humans
Humans did not evolve from apes such as gorillas and chimps. Instead, humans and apes share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. This common ancestor diverged over time to form many different species of hominid, only one of which survived to become modern humans. All the rest of the hominids, including early humans, became extinct.


Evolution of humans

During the evolution of human beings, many features gave individuals advantages that offered them a better chance of survival, including:

  • the ability to stand upright, so predators and prey could be seen more easily
  • having a larger brain, providing the ability to plan ahead, work together, and eventually speak
Ideas about science - data and theories
It has taken scientists a long time to try to discover how humans evolved. Scientists do this by producing an explanation and then looking for data to support their theory or prediction. Sometimes the data agrees with and supports the prediction. This increases the scientist’s confidence that the prediction is correct.

Data does not always support the theory
Sometimes the data disagrees and does not support the theory. This can prove that either the prediction or the observation used to produce the data is wrong. An example of this is the discovery of a new gene that affects the evolution of brain size. Scientists think it first appeared about 40,000 years ago. It has been so successful that 70% of humans now carry this gene. Scientists think that the gene increases brain size and this may improve intelligence. Scientists are now examining this gene. Many predictions and theories about how the gene works will be made, but it will only be when much more data and evidence has been collected that we will know which of these theories is correct.

In your examination you may be given additional information about human evolution that you have not seen before. You will need to be able to identify valid conclusions from the data provided and say which supports a prediction and which does not.

Data does not always prove the theory - higher only
Observations and data that support a theory still do not prove that the prediction is correct. For example, a theory that states that storks deliver human babies could be supported by the fact that populations of storks are often found near areas with higher human birth rates. This data supports the theory but does not prove it.

Observations and data that do not support a theory decrease the scientist’s confidence that the theory is correct.


Rag waa shaah dumarna waa sheeko.
The important questions isn't that dna similarities exists but rather how they came about. The underlying assumption in evolution is that the degree of similarity reflects degree of relatedness. The processes that are credited for this relatedness are purely mechanistic in nature ie natural selection & random mutations.

What isn't proven or even tested at all is whether or not the above mechanisms are capable of producing what the proponents claim. As it stands it's simply assumed that they can given enough time. They theory faces another challenge this time from another hypothesis whereby the degree of relatedness is accredited not to naturalistic mechanisms but to intelligent agency ie God. From our own experience we use similar solutions to solve different problems so an inference is made from our own experience to explain why and how the relatedness came about.

Now the question we should ask proponents of the theory is to explain their reasoning why they are convinced that the dna similarity is due to evolution and not God (designer). The biggest issue for such people is that their explanations are outside the limits of what we currently know about the natural world. Current understanding of the natural process that occur in our world are inadequate to explain what we observe about life that's why they appeal to time as if it's going to solve the issue. By appealing to time they believe that somewhere down the line a brilliant scientist will one day come up with an explanation that doesn't go beyond the natural world nor appeal to the supernatural .
Not open for further replies.