ARE HUMAN BEINGS REALLY GENETICALLY 98% THE SAME AS CHIMPS ?
OR ARE DEVOUT EVOLUTIONISTS 100% THE SAME AS CHUMPS??
Recently (Summer, 2005) it has been claimed by a particular group of American “scientists” that “it is now known” that human beings are genetically 98% the same as chimpanzees. The implication being that this further corroborates our supposed ancestry from monkeys. But does this information really tell us anything valid? Or is this an example of the highly selective use of information apparently calculated to deceive?
Okay. So are we genetically 98% the same as chimps? And, if we are, does this really prove anything or provide strong evidence for anything at all? Or is this just providing biased, 'stacked' and purposely misleading information?
Now let us consider this, and I am here indebted to Russ Miller of Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries for some helpful information.
First of all, some scientists challenge the 98% figure claiming that 93-96% is closer.
But this is a wonderful example of the selective use of information in order to help support an argument and the ignoring of much other information which is not helpful to an argument! It could be said, for instance, that there are thousands of differences between chimps and humans – I repeat: there are thousands of differences. But obviously pointing that out would not be helpful for evolutionists so they look for something which looks better.
Now lets get this useless statistic into perspective:
Our picture shows the distinguished Professor Dr Erich Von Votaloadofmonkees delivering an evolution lecture.
Our biochemistry is about 97% the same as a mouse.
Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.
Human Cytochrom 'C' is closest to that of a sunflower.
Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.
Human skin is closest to that of a pig.
I think we should all be able see that randomly quoted things like this really do not amount to evidence of anything whatsoever!!
The truth is
that – despite superficial similarities – humans are
totally different to chimpanzees – as already
mentioned the differences number in the thousands.
Why do I oppose evolution? I continue to oppose evolution because it is just plain wrong! It is a philosophy which purposely set out to attack the Holy Bible and Christianity in the guise of “good science” but it is a theory and a philosophy which is imposed on a mountain of evidence which is actually against it. To be frank, the evidence of millions of fossils is that divine creation is true and much other evidence points in the same direction. There is no reason that a theory which is so shot full of holes needs to be seriously considered. This philosophy soon developed into a religion with devout evolutionists clinging to it by sheer faith, yet the good news is that creationists are increasingly being joined by scientists (often with the very highest credentials) in opposing it. I don't care whether one talks about evolution or Neo-Darwinism – the whole thing is flawed. Microbiologist Michael Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity seems to signal the final death knell although evolutionists will undoubtedly continue the struggle a little while longer yet.
Meanwhile, we should be clear that Natural Selection (the survival of the fittest) and micro-adaptation (variations within kinds - we should refuse to call this micro-evolution) plainly occur but are nothing whatsoever to do with the big lie of Darwinism (macro-evolution) which plainly flies in the face of all observable scientific data. So if somebody accuses me of rejecting evolution on “religious grounds”, I immediately throw this right back at them : it is they who accept evolution on blind faith – without anywhere near sufficient evidence (as many evolutionists will honestly admit) – their faith is faith indeed.
Robin A. Brace, 2005.
For a much fuller refutation of the human/monkey link go to
Monkey-Man Hypothesis Refuted
The reader will find masses of information outlining the errors of evolutionism HERE.
(Our sincere thanks to Answers in Genesis for the use of the cartoon).