Humans and Chimpanzees are actually only 84% similar

Searching in google for the percent similarity between humans and chimpanzees will give you an abundant of knee-jerk journalism that claims we are about 98.6% identical. What they breeze over is the fact that this similarity is only exhibited among similar genes. Yes you read that right, they are essentially saying "similar gene sequences are similar". An unbiased analysis of the raw data shows it is more like an 84% similarity.

The human genome has about 150,000,000 less DNA nucleotides than chimpanzees:

human genome count

chimpanzee genome length.

This alone means they can at max be 95.8% similar, assuming all coding is identical. But the remaining is not identical.

of the remaining genome, a genetic analysis found:

"Approximately 306 Mb (9.91%) of the human sequence did not align to the chimpanzee sequence" source

This means 9.91% of the human sequence did not align with the chimpanzee genome. Add this to the fact that humans have a 4.2% smaller genome, and the max similarity can be about 86%.

Now is where we get the commonly highlighted statistic that about 98.6% of the genome is similar. It is not the entire genome that is 98.6% similar, it is merely the remaining 86% of alignable genetic sequences that are 98.6% similar. so 98.6% x 86% equals a total of about 84% of the genomes that is actually similar. Yet you never see this percentage in any headlines, you have to dig through the raw data to find it.

This is a huge blow for evolutionary theory. Imagine losing 150,000,000 DNA fragments of data, and also having 306,000,000 DNA fragments of data being incomparable to the chimpanzee that was supposedly the last common ancestor. This divergent species supposedly evolved around 5,000,000 years ago. This means that 450 DNA mutations/deletions must have occurred per year. Or, given a 25 year generational gap (meaning these mutations can only be offered once every 25 years passed on to the next generation), this means that each generation would have theoretically had to evolve 25 x 450 = 11,250 beneficial mutations per generation. This sort of mutation rate is absolutely unfounded in the realm of possibility in genetic research.

This is good news, do not blindly refuse it based off old bias to evolutionary theory. We were force-fed evolutionary theory by the media while growing up, but it is not based in any sort of realistic science. You are not the offspring of mutated chimps. Imagine the possibilities of your true origins!

do not blindly refuse it based off old bias....... You are not the offspring of mutated chimps.

The thing is, we are not an offspring of the Chimpanzee, we didn't evolve from a "mutated chimp" and this isn't a blow to evolutionary theory. We have/had a common ancestor. you talk about old biases and yet show bias in your own statement.

dnalc.cshl.edu...

Another link to a website that explains the facts of our common ancestor of which there are many out there.

Last common ancestor

originally posted by: Kurokage
The thing is, we are not an offspring of the Chimpanzee, we didn't evolve from a "mutated chimp" this isn't a blow to evolutionary theory

Lol I wrote it for the lay-man, and including wordy detail to be semantically correct can be exhausting for the reader. But sure I clarified the specificity you are appealing to. Don't get caught up in semantics though.

16% dissimilarity between humans and chimpanzees creates an insurmountable bridge between the two species. 450,000,000 DNA nucleotides to be mutated or deleted in a theoretical 5,000,000 years between the chimp divergent species and humans is not possible. The theoretical divergent common ancestor would not have been able to mutate 11,250 DNA sequences per generation, that is an impossible rate of beneficial mutation.

a reply to: cooperton

but you're trying to claim that chimps are our evolutionary predecessor and they are not. Our ancestral species diverged around 10 to 14 million years ago appox'.

Homo sapiens aren't a straight line from an ancestor of chimp and human. We are a mix of many species and our family "tree" is more of an intertwined "bush" with lots of cross breeding of related species.
www.iflscience.com...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

but you're trying to claim that chimps are our evolutionary predecessor and they are not. Our ancestral species diverged around 10 to 14 million years ago appox'.

The chimpanzee genome is used as the best reference for the theoretical divergence. This is why it was so proudly touted by evolutionists that the genomes were so similar. The fact that they are at best 84% similar is a huge monkey wrench in this line of thinking. The referenced divergence, according to the theory, happened between 5-8 million years ago, which is what I used for the numbers. Instead of straining a gnat, debate the point of the OP which is the much greater difference between human and chimpanzee genomes than previously reported.

a reply to: cooperton

Cool post and topic.

I've read so many things lately, and the possibilities seem endless.

One theory is that we all came from different planets. Another is that we are from different animals (oink oink).
It's one of those things that is a little scary to think about.

a reply to: Kurokage

Our ancestral species diverged around 10 to 14 million years ago appox'.

The headline of the article you posted says "MAY"

Yet you left that out ... you didn't add "may have diverged"

Look in the mirror before you start throwing stones at others....

a reply to: cooperton

Instead of straining a gnat, debate the point of the OP which is the much greater difference between human and chimpanzee genome

That's what I've done, and then I've pointed out your basic assumptions that are wrong before even going into the DNA....

happened between 5-8 million years ago,

This assumption here is wrong and your assumption that we are a direct descendant of a chimp is also wrong.

a reply to: seedofchucky

From the srticle i provided......

the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) in fact lived 12 million years ago.....

a new study investigating the mutation rates of chimpanzees has provided further evidence to support this notion, suggesting that the MRCA lived around 13 million years ago.

originally posted by: Kurokage

the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) in fact lived 12 million years ago.....

Even if it was theoretically 12 million years ago, that's still 5,000 beneficial mutations per generation. You do realize it's not a fact it's a theory right? the 16% dissimilarity alone disproves that there is not enough time for such a transition. Especially given the fact that the estimated probability of a successful mutation for a protein coding gene is 1 in 10^64 (meaning 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) source

" The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77,"

originally posted by: Kurokage

"...happened between 5-8 million years ago,"

This assumption here is wrong and your assumption that we are a direct descendant of a chimp is also wrong.

You specifically misquoted me... I said:

"The referenced divergence, according to the theory, happened between 5-8 million years ago"

Regardless, this will be my last response to your thread drift. If you want further discussion talk about the 16% dissimilarity between the human and chimpanzee genome

a reply to: cooperton

From your links.

Note that the chimpanzee genome is far less polished than human, and much of the extra DNA might be explained by haplotype variants or incompletely merged regions; thus the two genomes might be much closer in size than these numbers indicate.

The genomes are very similar across all chromosomes, with the percent identity varying only slightly, from 97.5% to 98.2% for chromosomes 1-22 and X. Chromosome Y was an outlier at 96.6% identity over 84.6% of its length; however this is likely due to the fact that the chimpanzee Y chromosome is much less complete than the human Y.

You do realize it's not a fact it's a theory right?

You don't even seem understand what scientific theory means?

www.dictionary.com...

a reply to: cooperton

I agree we are NOT Apes, there are those that will argue tooth and nail that we are but there is evidence they will also argue tooth and nail is NOT proof of perhaps another or perhaps our own human race fully formed at a time when the ancestors of the Chimp in there favoured evolutionary THEORY (Which they continue to argue as FACT when in actuality it is THEORY and one with holes in it that have never been addressed and which Darwin himself began to doubt before he died).

You see you are arguing with faithful whom believe in Science much as there ancestors once believed in Pagan belief system's.

There world experience is limited, there knowledge which was mostly taught to them is based on the IDEAS of other people, even those with Qualifications are just sitting on top of a stack of cards based on the ideas of thinkers and idea men whom came before them..



TRUE Science is not like this.

Here are the Tenets of true science that so many on this and indeed in the so called scientific world ignore,

ANY THEORY can be SUPPORTED but NEVER PROVEN.
ANY - that is ANY - EVIDENCE that goes against the premise of a theory DISPROVES the theory.

This caused a problem when modern physics encountered the quantum realm so to allow them to continue to use there models (Theory's) of reality as if they were correct since all manner of evidence was arising to suggest that they were actually flawed, that is INCORRECT models (theory's) and so the concept of CHAOS theory coupled with all manner of other get out of jail cards were put on the table.

Evolution is a THEORY not a FACT but it is taught in schools around the world driven by Secularist's and men whom believe themselves rational as if it was FACT set in stone.

Take the Paluxy tracks, human footprints that crossed the tracks of dinosaurs and some of which were crossed BY dinosaurs - no APEs around back then according to Evolutionary theory of course.
After a speech in which the people investigating the tracks presented there evidence some of the crowd in the room that included Evolutionary believers became very uncomfortable, a man was seen carrying an Iron bar near to the track's and when they were revisited the human footprints had been smashed into an unrecognizable state.

Here is a rebuttal from one man whom was thought by some to be responsible, he may indeed be innocent so I am not accusing him but I do believe the destruction took place and was a deliberate act by someone whom wanted to destroy the evidence.
www.talkorigins.org...

Then there are other find's that are NOT accepted by the mainstream despite scientific figure having been applied.
manasoldascoal.blogspot.com...

But what about artefacts, well of course we have Out Of Place Artefacts that are always being denied as what they are and many, many, many have been dug up down coal mines over the century's.

But NO you see these are NOT ACCEPTED as fact by those that have there NEW Religion, they do not want to believe in a God so they grasp at the words of there NEW PRIESTS, the Irrational and UNSCIENTIFIC so called Experts that proclaim theory as fact and have created there own history for everything.

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink as the saying goes, it's a sad indictment of our age that Science meant to be the tool of humanity has been turned into a tool to control humanity and human thought.


Also though they have not made a big thing of it Genes are not the only thing that defines a living organism's functions, PRION's a type of folded protein can also cause mutation and affect the functions of an organism independent of DNA and RNA.

There has never been any actual evidence that humans evolved from apes, only speculation and theory based on a theory that's never been proven.

a reply to: cooperton

Imagine the possibilities of your true origins!

Why don't you tell us.

1980 called and wants its 'we are ape descendants' argument back.

a reply to: cooperton



Your guy in the sky must be a really inferior molecular biologist. Only 84% difference? Why not 8% or 0%? You just confirmed the reasoning behind the concept of a common ancestor. When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.

The significance level between the two groups is less than 10 to the minus 4, or 0.0004. You didn't do the calculation. In biological terms, that's insignificant regardless how much drama you add to the data.

a reply to: cooperton

BTW, I just looked at your links. You totally misinterpreted the data.

At the top of the chimpanzee data page it says:

Chimpanzee assembly and gene annotation

The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is a great ape found almost exclusively in the heavily forested regions of Central and West Africa. Along with the bonobo, the chimpanzee is humanity's closest living relative, with almost 99% of DNA in common between the species.

Regardless how long/short the entire DNA strand is, the functional gene similarity is 99%.

Get a book on basic statistics and data interpretation. Jeeeezzzzzzzzzz..............

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Your guy in the sky must be a really inferior molecular biologist. Only 84% difference? Why not 8% or 0%? You just confirmed the reasoning behind the concept of a common ancestor. When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.

The significance level between the two groups is less than 10 to the minus 4, or 0.0004. You didn't do the calculation. In biological terms, that's insignificant regardless how much drama you add to the data.

Speaking of inferior molecular biology, I imagine most of society is more interested in seeing the Wuhan virus miraculously vanish from the world overnight than listening to tedious speculation about the origin of the human race. But that's something only a truly benevolent and capable intelligent designer would do.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Your guy in the sky must be a really inferior molecular biologist. Only 84% difference? Why not 8% or 0%? You just confirmed the reasoning behind the concept of a common ancestor. When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.

The significance level between the two groups is less than 10 to the minus 4, or 0.0004. You didn't do the calculation. In biological terms, that's insignificant regardless how much drama you add to the data.

Speaking of inferior molecular biology, I imagine most of society is more interested in seeing the Wuhan virus miraculously vanish from the world overnight than listening to tedious speculation about the origin of the human race. But that's something only a truly benevolent and capable intelligent designer would do.

No chance of that. The Vatican has made clear that exorcists are not to expel COVID from patients. So much for the benevolent designer..........

Vatican to Exorcists: Please Don’t Try to Cast COVID Out of People
www.thedailybeast.com...

N/m