“A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.” [Tomkins,Thomas, http://www.icr.org/article/5292/ ]
[ Note: this article has generated some negative response due to its selectivity of use of the Y-chromosome. Tomkins responds to Todd Wood on this issue here; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/response-genomes-chimpanzees-humans ]
[See also “Rabbit hunting with evolutionists for more on the human/chimp DNA comparison]
Homology is really not a good argument for relationship, and that goes for genes too. However, most people aren’t aware of how biased the use of homology is by the evolutionary apologists, so this study helps blow the legs off the oft-repeated claim of a 98 percent similarity between human and chimps. And 70% percent is a conservative overall estimate of the new findings as some results are as low as 50% in similarity, at least for the group of genes being studied [and this particular study is dealing with a small part of the DNA comparison]. However, while this story is good for a “silver bullet” to shock people away from slowly absorbing the idea that a 98% homolgy with chimps means we share a common ancestry with them, we really should know better. After all we share 85 to 99% homology with some field mice ( see of mice and men and bananas) and at least 60% homology with bananas and some insects. And yet I haven’t read any breaking news reports using these findings to prove we’re really just intelligent mice.
Moses tells us that God made men and animals “out of the ground”, that is we and all other creatures were made from non-living matter which God himself organized to bring us to life. So naturally we share a homology with the rest of creation. Striking morphological homology exists between animals which have no close relation and don’t even share common appearance or environments,(ie, the octupus and human eye) why would not genetic homology exist in those animals that share a common appearance and an ecological niche? When evolutionists find a homology with creatures that they know can’t be related, they call that convergence or an analogous similarity. If they find an homology between animals that fit into their evolutionary scheme they label that as proof of ancestry.
Obviously, homology is not proof of relationship, just as it would be impossible to prove that it is the result of design. However, the design argument does not contradict the grouping of kinds observed both in living things and in the fossil record, nor does it require faith in Macroevolution or spontaneous generation. But the data fits well with Moses’s prediction of common design from common material for a common environment…How did he know that over 3000 years ago?
Go to this link: http://www.icr.org/article/5292/ and read about the new results of research on the Chimp genome in the following article; New Chromosome Research Undermines Human/Chimp Similarity Claims by Jeffrey Tomkins, Phd. and Brian Thomas M.S.
[For other interesting homologies and comparisons, see the post, “Of Mice and Men, and Bananas”,[ https://notmanynoble.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/of-mice-and-men-and-bananas/ ]