Science Evidence Being Suppressed
At the Creation Studies Institute (CSI), we are used to reading headlines that make exaggerated announcements based on cherry picked research. The poster boy for this type of evolutionary propaganda is the human versus chimp DNA comparisons that have been promoted for more than 20 years. Since these types of comparison studies were first reported, the headlines and excerpts from these articles have been astonishing. Here’s a small sample.
The research also shows that around 15 percent of the human gene map resembles the gorilla more closely than it does the chimpanzee genome
Human and chimp DNA is 98.8% identical
The Museum of Natural History 2018
Chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical
Science Daily 2006
Humans, chimpanzees and monkeys share DNA but not gene regulatory mechanisms
Science Daily 2012
The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates
The Smithsonian 2018
Monkey DNA Points to Common Human Ancestor
Live Science 2007
New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level
National Institute of Health (NIH) 2005
Did you notice that many of these headlines are from research done from circa 2006? The websites continue to repeat the accepted mantra of ape-to-human evolution via a common ancestry. They deliberately choose not to report evidence that does not promote their worldview. What happens is announcements of research findings are made, the more supportive of evolutionary theory the louder and more widespread the reporting will be. Large news services like Reuters pick up these announcements and a plethora of science websites and news outlet hype the research being promoted.
This is one way that those in power of what is reported can manipulate the masses into believing their lie that, “In the beginning, nothing produced something that produced everything else.” The truth is only expressed by scientists who are not brainwashed by scientism. This the belief that science is the only form of truth in the universe that can be trusted. Merriam defines scientism as an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation. The result being the exclusion of all evidence that is contrary to what science says is true or, “In the beginning, science created…”
From its inception, evolutionary theory promoted the concept of homology for evidence of an evolutionary relationship between organisms. More recently, genetic research has replaced comparative anatomy as a means of proving Darwin’s theory to be true. For that reason, since the 1960’s, it was assumed that genetics would simply prove the Theory of Evolution to be true.
One of the more glaring examples of this manipulation and suppression of new genetic research is that the actual difference between human and chimp DNA is not a mere 1.2%, but a whopping 15% or more. Why is that such an explosive finding? The reason for this is due to the fact that genes behave in ways that are not as straight forward as once thought. Even with obvious similarities, genetic expression is widely variable. Two genes that appear to be superficially similar, may behave in ways that contradict those apparent similarities. The fact that scientists have known this to be true for decades, but choose instead downplay these facts because it suits their evolutionary worldview, is purposely misleading.
Why is a 15% difference in human versus chimp DNA such an important finding?
The answer is simple. More than 1% dissimilarity between human and chimp DNA makes the possibility of an evolutionary connection nearly statistically null. For that reason, the dissimilarities are being suppressed. Recent research by Richard Buggs, Ph.D. showed evidence that the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%. That’s a far cry from the 98.8% figure or the more recently downgraded 95% figure being promoted today.
Dr. Buggs noted in his blog that the human genome was still about 5% incomplete and the chimp is less well assembled than that. What Dr. Buggs has reported is more likely around a 72% match in human versus chimp DNA. Not exactly an encouraging number for those who want to establish a genetic link between humans and apes.
You may ask, “Has any other researcher been able to verity the findings of Dr. Buggs?” The answer to that is yes. But the problem is that the researcher, Dr. Tomkins, although very well qualified with a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University, is not a card-carrying member of the evolutionary establishment. He is the Director of the Life Sciences Institute at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). When Dr. Tomkins did his initial research with Dr. Jerry Bergman in 2012 comparing human-chimp estimates of similarity, they discovered that important data had been omitted. Their research revised the similarity down from 98.8% to between 66% and 86%. Dr. Tomkins 2018 research yielded an average alignment of 84% between the genomes. His findings confirmed what Dr. Buggs reported, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a big new announcement to be picked up by the news wires. It’s not going to happen.
Allow me to give you a sobering conclusion to this human versus chimp DNA comparison from researchers Thompson and Brad Harrub (2002) from their article on the Apologetics Press.
Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Once again, the evolutionary faithful will continue to promote their failed theory, not because the evidence is in favor of it, but quite the contrary. They will continue the lies and deception, because to them, the alternative explanation of a creation with a Creator or design pointing to a Designer remains unacceptable to them.
Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.
Director of Communications