DoctorAlien:


Has the meaning of the word "observe" changed? How can you observe something that happened when you were not there, and there was no camera to record it for you? Who saw the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one? In your analogy, the jury were not there when the crime occurred but remember that if there is no piece of evidence against a suspect which his lawyer cannot successfully dispute, he may never be convicted.

On the 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA, I'm gonna let a combination of articles from two sources speak here:

"The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story.


What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes?

The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

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 (Romans 1:18–23).

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

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, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same amounts of the proteins are produced. Such differences in protein expression can yield vastly different responses in cells. Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans.

Gene families are groups of genes that have similar sequences and also similar functions. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? 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. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross."

"In conclusion, the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario.

Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play."

http://creation.mobi/human-chimp-dna-similarity
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/

lol i am of the opinion that you are debating what you do not know ...have you read Charles Darwin book on the theory of origin of species? if not, kindly study it , you can get it at amazon. it is not like any other boring science books. Charles Darwin himself is a good orator..... how do i begin to address your point self?.... i am lazy to do it..... but i will say limiting yourself to one area of study because it suit your want is dangerous to your level of academic.. it is called bias.... i learn from both creationist website and biological/physics base websites... even after telling you about forensic science and how DNA is capable of tracing your 10th cousins, you still went ahead to bring in these article....... and for the last time bible is not not a science text book... what is observed is the genetic sequence and not exactly when it begins.....

MrMystrO:


Hahaha this guy! I will humbly suggest to you that you leave science alone Please. Stick to preaching your bible gospel message to people who are interested in it and stop meddling in affairs you Know NOTHING about, Honestly your attempts at trying to discredit science makes you look Extremely stupid and i don't want to believe you're that stupid because you should Know They Don't go Hand in Hand. Stick to What you Know!! I've told you before, if you want to dispute scientific facts, Start by throwing away your Phone and creating your own phone and internet which you and your kind can use But if you can't do that then Stop displaying your Ignorance here on a daily basis, Its getting extremely boring!

I am the one talking about true science as opposed to your fairytale stories of evolution being passed off as "science." If you truly know what science is all about you would know that it should be observable, repeatable and testable.

Darwinian evolution can do neither of these as you cannot observe it today. What we observe are human beings producing after their kinds, animals producing after their kind nothing evolved.

We have never observed one animal evolving into another like a cog (cat to dog) or your so called apelike beings evolving to mankind. All you have is insults, ad hominems and all sorts of emotional outbursts nothing scientific, reasonable, logical or rational.

Don't call yourself a scientist if you cannot tell the difference between fairytales and scientifical facts.

OLAADEGBU:


I am the one talking about true science as opposed to your fairytale stories of evolution being passed off as "science." If you truly know what science is all about you would know that it should be observable, repeatable and testable.

Darwinian evolution can do neither of these as you cannot observe it today. What we observe are human beings producing after their kinds, animals producing after their kind nothing evolved.

We have never observed one animal evolving into another like a cog (cat to dog) or your so called apelike beings evolving to mankind. All you have is insults, ad hominems and all sorts of emotional outbursts nothing scientific, reasonable, logical or rational.

Don't call yourself a scientist if you cannot tell the difference between fairytales and scientifical facts.

OK. Continue to wallow in your self delusion, I don't Argue with Shallow minds. I'm done here

Atheist again passing off their fairytales as science...

rekinomtla:


Atheist again passing off their fairytales as science...

You got it.

MrMystrO:


OK. Continue to wallow in your self delusion, I don't Argue with Shallow minds. I'm done here

The usual atheist cop out.

OLAADEGBU:


The usual atheist cop out.

Lol you see.. Sentimental bias and ignorance by default. So anybody who doesn't agree with your ridiculous theories is an atheist.. I'm not surprised. Mind you, I'm not an atheist, I'm just someone who hopes you get wake up from your crazy delusions someday. Have a nice day.

MrMystrO:


Lol you see.. Sentimental bias and ignorance by default. So anybody who doesn't agree with your ridiculous theories is an atheist.. I'm not surprised. Mind you, I'm not an atheist, I'm just someone who hopes you get wake up from your crazy delusions someday. Have a nice day.

It is clear that you are the one pouring out negative emotional outbursts. You may like to think that you are not an atheist but you have certainly been lied to by the father of lies with the evolution lie, which was concocted by the devil who has been using the same lies he used since Adam to deceive people today.

OLAADEGBU:


You may like to think that you are not an atheist but you have certainly been lied to by the father of lies with the evolution lie, which was concocted by the devil who has been using the same lies he used since Adam to deceive people today.

OK, you're right. I believe you because i know you know it All and you are never wrong about Anything. You can move along now.

OLAADEGBU:


You may like to think that you are not an atheist but you have certainly been lied to by the father of lies with the evolution lie, which was concocted by the devil who has been using the same lies he used since Adam to deceive people today.

OK, you're right. I believe you because i know you know it All and you are never wrong about Anything. You can move along now.

MrMystrO:


OK, you're right. I believe you because i know you know it All and you are never wrong about Anything. You can move along now.

Did you have to quote me twice? What is the cause of the stammering?

DoctorAlien:


The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution.

God bless you doctor, please tell them.