For a very long time, the evolutionist choir has been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human". Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.

A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought", they report the following:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent. i

New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. ii

Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design".

Common Design, not Common Ancestory

But what does the genetic similarity between man and chimps - even as 95 % - mean? To answer that question, one has to look at the whole picture.

When we look at genetic comparisons in general, we find surprising similarities which do not fit within the alleged evolutionary relationships between species. For example a genetic analysis has revealed a surprising 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.iii According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were unrelated to each other even 530 million years ago. Thus, the % 70 similarity - a very high figure for humans and nematode worms, completely different and dissimilar life forms - does not imply any evolutionary relationship.

On the other hand, the analyses carried on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. iv

These results, along with many others, shows that genetic similarities between man and animals, and animals themselves, do not fit in any evolutionary pattern. In other words, the reason of similarity can not be "common ancestory" as the theory of evolution suggests.

Then what is the reason? When we rethink the subject, we can see that the similarities stem from the fact that all life forms have similar functions and thus similar necessities. As we have explained in one of our previous articles, "Darwinists Misrepresentations About the Human Genome Project", it is surely reasonable for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.

Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common design," i.e. Creation.