The Evolution Deceit
Reports of a new study on genetic similarity have recently been appearing in Darwinist publishing organs. The subject was the genetic similarity between man and chimpanzee, which evolutionists frequently employ as a propaganda tool. This latest study (1) , by a team led by the researcher Morris Goodman of Wayne University in the state of Michigan in the USA, concluded that there was a 99.4% degree of similarity between human beings and chimpanzees. In the light of the scale of that figure, Goodman suggested that chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) should be removed from the Pan genus and included in the Homo genus, of which man is a part.
The Darwinist media had an opportunity to repeat all the old familiar propaganda within the framework of that report. Stories such as that it had been discovered that man and chimpanzee had descended from a common ancestor, that man was a slightly different species of ape, and that man and chimpanzee were pretty much the same were announced as if they were scientific fact. In these reports the similarity motif was brought to the fore by putting the figure 99.4% in bold type and showing photographs of humans and chimpanzees embracing one another.
The following article sets out first the inconsistencies in the Darwinist media’s propaganda and then the bigoted attitude which underlies it. A list is then supplied of those organisations which support such propaganda, together with the headlines they used.
The Inconsistencies in Genetic Similarity Propaganda
As we have already set out many times, such genetic comparisons constitute no proof of evolution, and merely reveal preconceptions. Some important points which need to be known are:
1) The similarities between man and chimpanzees cannot be generalised to the whole genomes. In other words, it is wrong to say, ‘Man is 99.4% similar to the chimpanzee.’ It would still be wrong to say the figure was 75%. That is because there is no completed chimpanzee genome project. The number of genes Goodman took from chimpanzee DNA and studied was limited to only 97. This represents only 0.3% (three-thousandths) of the at least 30,000 known genes in the human genome. The 94% similarity claim is as illogical as announcing that a thick book, of which only three paragraphs have been read, bears a 99.4% similarity to another book solely because those paragraphs happen to appear in it. In short, the first condition for any judgement to be made on this subject is for the whole book to be read, in other words for the chimpanzee genome to be completed.
2) All genetic comparisons based on partial DNA examples are completely are open to preconceptions. Someone who wishes to portray the similarity as large as possible will tend to select those parts where there is more similarity, and someone wishing to minimise the similarity will tend to select areas where there is less. This opens the door to Goodman’s achieving, if he compares totally identical sections, a 100% similarity even. However, if Goodman does achieve such a result of course he will not claim that ‘Man and the Chimpanzee are 100% Genetically Similar.’ It is clear that figures implying the idea of 100% to mind will find greater room for publication in the Darwinist media, for which reason they will be preferred. In essence, it must always be borne in mind that studies producing similarity levels as high as 99.4% are to a large extent based on evolutionist preconceptions.
3) It is invalid to portray the similarity between man and chimpanzee as proof of the thesis that they descended from a common ancestor. It is wrong to accept that similarities in living things are an indication of a common origin, and that this origin is evolution. That is because the theory of evolution rests on blind chance. The common structures in living things, DNA for instance, are too complex to have emerged by chance. When we see two similar aeroplanes, for instance, we assume that their origin lies in intelligent design, not in sheer coincidence, since the design in them cannot be explained by chance. The DNA molecule is a molecule with a complex design which conceals large quantities of information in a special code. The design in living things is generally very complex, and similar structures need to be considered with the logic that they emerged not by chance but with a common design, in other words by creation.
4) Even if the ‘reading’ of the chimpanzee genome is completed and is shown to be 98% similar to the human genome, it will still be illogical to say that ‘man is 98% chimpanzee.’ Man shares genes, at specific levels, with many other living things. There is a 75% similarity between human and nematode worm genes, but this does not mean that man is 75% worm. Some evolutionists can see the illogicality in these inferences, and duly express it. Professor Steven Jones, for instance, has warned that the demonstration of a 50% similarity between man and the banana will not mean that man is half-banana.(2) That is because even if the genes of two different living things are the same, we know that they can still function in entirely different ways. Furthermore, the fact that individual genes sometimes have more than one function (pleiotropy), or that one function can be directed by several genes (poligeny), widens the mathematical difference considerably.
Since human beings do not only share genes with chimpanzees, contrary to what the evolutionist media would have us believe, a researcher could well take 97 common genes from man and another living thing and say, "Man is 100% banana,’ or ‘Man is 100% whale!"
The Bigotry of the Darwinist Media
The Darwinist media make great efforts to ensure that research such as this, which portrays genetic similarities as very high, is widely known. Yet there are also points on this subject which the Darwinist media do not wish to be well known. They see no ‘news’ value in these, and it is next to impossible for people to learn about them. Although pro-Darwinist publications have no hesitation about reporting genetic similarities when they turn out to be high, they totally ignore studies which conclude that the same similarity is very low.
For instance, three separate studies were published in the last nine months alone showing the invalidity of the 98.7% similarity propaganda which evolutionists have been insisting on for decades. These studies showed that in previous similarity studies DNA regions that would produce a high similarity level had been studied, in other words that the results were overstated. These latest studies, all carried out by evolutionists, the scientific journals they were published in and the conclusions drawn are as follows:
1. Britten, R.J. 2002, ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:13633-13635
The California Institute of Technology geneticist Roy Britten studied DNA samples (consisting of 735,000 base pairs) he had taken from two living things, not just from the point of view of different nucleotide points but also from that of indels (insertions and deletions, regions where they have more or less sequences than one another). Britten showed that although indels occupied an important place, previous studies had not considered them, and that the similarity level went down considerably if they were included in the calculations. Britten concluded that the similarity in the DNA samples he studied was only 95%. Although New Scientist magazine reported this under the headline "Human-Chimp DNA Difference Trebled" (3) the report received little acknowledgement in international Darwinist newspapers and TV channels. It was entirely ignored in Turkey.
2. Kelly A. Frazer, Xiyin Chen, David A. Hinds, P.V. Krishna Pant, Nila Patil, and David R. Cox. Genome Research. 2003 13: 341-346 “Genomic DNA Insertions and Deletions Occur Frequently Between Humans and Nonhuman Primates.”
In this study, led by Kelly Frazer of the California-based Perlegen Sciences organization, the human 21st chromosome was compared to the equivalent genetic material from the orang-utan- rhesus monkey, chimpanzee and woolly monkey. The conclusions were parallel to those drawn by Britten: insertions and deletions separate man from these apes to a considerable extent.
New Scientist magazine reported this under the headline ‘Yawning Gap Divides Monkeys and Us,’ (4) but evolutionist news organs drew a curtain of silence over these findings.
3. In a study presented at the April 2003 Human Genome Association meeting in the Mexican city of Cancun, a team led by Todd Taylor from the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Centre in the Japanese city of Yokohama compared the chimpanzee 22nd chromosome with the human 21st chromosome.
Nature magazine reported Taylor’s views on its website:
Previously, human and chimp genetic sequences were quoted as being nearly 99% identical, with a difference of only a few DNA"s letters. In fact, the similarity may be as low as 94-95%, says Todd Taylor. (5)
The article speaks of comparative techniques, and a comment was included showing that evolutionists doubt the reliability of these techniques. After new and previous techniques had been briefly summarised, the following comments appeared: "There"s still not a good way to say how much we"re similar," admits Taylor.”Darwinist newspapers and TV channels of course made no mention of Taylor’s views and the comparison results.
As we have seen, the Darwinist media behave most one-sidedly in reporting on genetic similarity studies between man and monkeys. Although all of these are followed, only those such as that of Goodman which present high figures are selected for the headlines. The inconsistencies regarding claims of genetic similarity which we have set out never reach the public, and the research results are presented as if they were scientifically proven fact (as in the headlines The Chimpanzee and Our Ancestor Were the Same and Man and the Chimpanzee Are Almost the Same).
The real aim of this mentality, so blindly devoted to Darwinism, is not to inform the public about scientific progress, but only to further the spread of Darwinism. Yet all these organisations ignore one very important fact: All the foundations of Darwinist propaganda are being eroded day by day by a wave of scientific discoveries. In the face of this, an increasing number of people are realising that the theory of evolution is a deception maintained for ideological reasons, and the truth of creation is spreading rapidly. None of these bodies’ propaganda efforts will be able to prevent the definitive collapse of Darwinism, and those who once supported this deception will be humbled before history and in the public eye.
(i) Derek E. Wildman, Monica Uddin, Guozhen Liu, Lawrence I. Grossman, and Morris Goodman
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
PNAS published May 23, 2003, 10.1073/pnas.1232172100
(ii) “Chimps belong in the Homo genus?”, Carl Wieland & Mike Matthews, 21 May 2003:
(iii) "Human-Chimp DNA Difference Trebled", 27 September 2003, http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
(iv) “Yawning gap divides monkeys and us”, New Scientist, 15 March 2003, p. 26
(v) “Chimps expose humanness”, Helen Pearce, 29 April 2003: http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-3.html