A while back, I wrote about the persistent lie told by evolutionists, that human and chimp DNA are 98% similar. The reality is that this amazing similarity only exists in about 82% of the genome. You might say, the parts that are similar are very similar but the entire genome...? Not so much. A letter by letter comparison of the two genomes shows the actual similarity is probably somewhere between 70-80%. Yet militant evolutionists would have us believe we are nearly identical to apes. In his book, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Richard Dawkins put it this way:
[H]umans and bacteria have some genes that have hardly changed at all since the common ancestor, their equivalent of Nostratic. And the genetic code itself is virtually identical in all species and must have been the same in the shared ancestors. One could say that the resemblance between German and Dutch is comparable to that between any pair of mammals. Human and chimpanzee DNA are so similar, they are like English spoken in two slightly different accents. [bold added]
If you watched Sesame Street a long time ago – like I did – you may remember a part of the show where they sang the song, “One of these things is not like the others....” It was a little exercise where they would show 4 objects; 3 of them were similar and 1 was different. It wasn't a hard game, even for a 5-year-old. Usually the differences were very obvious. They might show 3 squares and 1 circle, for example. In those games, the most obvious answer was always the correct one.
As adults, we might have a tendency to over think the game. If you think about it, there are a number of ways we could compare the shapes. If 2 squares and the circle were blue, we could correctly say the red square was different. Perhaps I might compare the area of the different shapes and see that 3 are more similar in size than the other. The more minutia I examine, the more ways I might find to compare the different shapes. At the same time, though, the more I might loose sight of the most glaring difference: 3 are still squares and 1 is a circle!
In their zeal to support their bankrupt theory, evolutionists go to great lengths to convince us how similar we are to apes. Besides the alleged similarities of our DNA, they will point to things like chimps' use of tools, their ability to grasp objects, their intelligence, their social order, and even things like male-pattern-baldness. Yada, yada, yada. It's nonsense!
 |
| Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com |
And what about intelligence? I have to laugh when I see scientists marvel at a chimp using a stick as a tool – all they while they are recording the event in 4K video! It's easy to see who is the greater master of tools. Remind me again what scientists hope to learn from studying chimps.
 |
| Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com |
Besides the obvious anatomical differences between apes an humans, there is also a spiritual difference. In Genesis 2:19-20, we read, “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” Adam could see that the animals were not like him. Genesis 1:27 says that man was created in the image of God.
So the next time you hear an evolutionist calling chimps our closest cousins, or apes our nearest relatives, remind yourself how different we really are from the apes. You can see the differences for yourself. And remember that simple exercise you learned all the way back in the first grade – one of these things is not like the others!
Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com
Human feet do not even remotely resemble apes' feet. Even our hands are dissimilar. The proportion of our limbs to our bodies is different than in gorillas. Our hips, our knees, our faces, our skulls, etc. - they're all different.
ReplyDeleteAre our feet more different from the feet of apes than, say, the ears of a spaniel are from those of a husky? Selective breeding within a single species of domestic animals can create striking differences in proportions, skull shape, etc.; do such differences prove vast dissimilarities between two species?
I have to laugh when I see scientists marvel at a chimp using a stick as a tool – all they while they are recording the event in 4K video!
It would be better to point out the immense variety even of stone-age human tools, and the stylistic changes over time, compared to the very simple modifications of natural objects by chimpanzees. After all, no humans were using 4K even a generation ago, and within living memory, there were still human cultures that didn't have metal or writing. Having complex electronics is not, I think, something you want to make a criterion for being human, or intelligent.
Anyway, yes, everyone concedes that chimps are not as smart as humans. But the point is that there is not an absolute distinction between "tool users" and all other animals; there are degrees of competence to modify objects in the natural environment as tools. Humans are better than other animals to a high degree, but it's a matter of degree, not kind.
Are there any similarities between humans and apes? Of course there are.
That raises an interesting question itself; why are there nonhuman apes? Why are there monkeys or lemurs? One might naively suppose that as a separate and distinct creation, unlike any other animal, we'd be, well, unlike any other animal. As William Congreve (1670-1729) noted, it is hard to look on a monkey without mortifying reflections. What, from a creationist view, is the purpose of such creatures? From an evolutionary point of view, it follows that our primitive ancestors would give rise to disparate descendants of varying degrees and types of advancement (i.e. apes and monkeys). The very existence of such creatures makes more sense from an evolutionary than from a creationist standpoint.
But think about this, even if there were only a 2% difference in our DNA, the human genome is so enormous that even 2% represents tens of millions of base pairs. Just look at how that difference is expressed in our bodies.
Many of the differences arise from regulatory sequences: not so much differences in protein-coding genes than differences in how and how long they are expressed. Some of the differences don't seem to be expressed at all: an extra copy of a pseudogene or endogenous retrovirus in most cases doesn't do anything noticeable. As I think I've pointed out before, there are various ways to count differences, but the usual method involves figuring out the minimal number of mutations necessary to account for the differences between genomes. A single mutation can duplicate, transpose, or delete thousands of sequential base pairs.
Steven J,
DeleteYou said, “Are our feet more different from the feet of apes than, say, the ears of a spaniel are from those of a husky? Selective breeding within a single species of domestic animals can create striking differences in proportions, skull shape, etc.; do such differences prove vast dissimilarities between two species?”
Apes are quadrupeds and their front feet look like their back feet, just like dogs and every other quadruped I can think of. What's more, chimps' front/back feet look much more like gorillas' front/back feet than they do human hands or feet. Does that “prove” we're not related? I know how most skeptics feel about the word “proof.” At the very least, I say it's evidence we're not related.
You said, “It would be better to point out the immense variety even of stone-age human tools, and the stylistic changes over time, compared to the very simple modifications of natural objects by chimpanzees. After all, no humans were using 4K even a generation ago, and within living memory, there were still human cultures that didn't have metal or writing. Having complex electronics is not, I think, something you want to make a criterion for being human, or intelligent. Anyway, yes, everyone concedes that chimps are not as smart as humans. But the point is that there is not an absolute distinction between "tool users" and all other animals; there are degrees of competence to modify objects in the natural environment as tools. Humans are better than other animals to a high degree, but it's a matter of degree, not kind. ”
Birds have been observed using tools. I've even seen a video of an octopus unscrewing the lid of a mason jar to get to at a crab placed inside it. Apes are closer to birds in intelligence (maybe even a little behind). Tool use and intelligence aren't evidence of relatedness. By that logic, apes would be more closely related to birds than humans.
Technology is merely the accumulation of discovery. Even today, there are still remotes people groups in the world that haven't been exposed to western technology. Even those people have art, language, games, etc. They have the ability to learn any technology. Human intelligent is different than animals in both degree and kind.
I might circle back to your last two points but I'm pressed for time. Thanks for visiting and for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley