The Claimed 99% Genomic Similarity between Humans & Chimps
Peace be upon you, Professor
Welcome, Anees!
You sent for me, Professor?
What's up?
Anees, you are accused
of cheating on your lab reports
by copying
from your colleague Shamshon
Me?!
Yes, don't deny; all the evidence
implicates you: 98.8% cheating!
How is that possible Professor?
I compared both your reports
and his numbers
are the same as yours except
for a few differences. Cheater!
Why, son? Why?
The request was to take the number from
the device and multiply it by its reverse
to get the result.
Why cheat?
Wait, Professor! Before you accuse
me of cheating, show me where I cheated?
And how you determined
the 98.8% cheating percentage!
Come, come, have a seat
Take this example from the two reports
Where is the cheating in these
figures, Professor?
All this similarity and you still
don't see where you cheated?
Well, let's review them line by
line to see where I cheated
These numbers are complicated
and it is not easy to identify
the cheating in them
Professor!
Be quiet! Let's ignore these
numbers and cross them out
Look, this number is 58
and since you cheated
we can consider the number 5858
the same as 58; just repeated
Professor, how did I cheat here?
I multiplied my number by its reverse.
The result is correct and
completely different from Shamshon's result
If I had copied from him
and made a mistake while copying
the result would not have been
different from his
and, what's more, correct!
Don't you see, Professor?
It is a coincidence!
How can it be a coincidence?
Indeed, it is a coincidence
you cheater!
Nonetheless, I will not wrong you
To be fair
let's cross out this line as well.
Check out this 992. Look!
Okay, how is it related to 2262?
Since you cheated
we can consider this 92 to be
the same number
but in a different line
which —in your rush to copy—
you accidentally dropped the 9
Professor, how did I accidentally
copy it?
The numbers' positions are different
in the two reports!
The product of reverse multiplication
is correct. If I had cheated
my result wouldn't have been different
from his and, what's more, correct!
Coincidence!
Just a coincidence!
Professor, how can it be
a coincidence?
I said it is a coincidence
you cheater!
Nevertheless I will not wrong you;
I will consider it a neutral point
Let's cross it out.
Look here!
Since you cheated
222 can be considered 2262
as you mistakenly added a 6
Professor!
Quiet, quiet! No need to discuss it.
I'll consider it another coincidence
and cross it out also
Another neutral point.
Let's see here
Exactly the same numbers:
25, 25, 75, 75, 125, 125
A perfect match in the two papers!
Obvious cheating!
Professor, these are necessary numbers
that we all use for setting our devices;
my colleagues and I
No, you are a cheater!
Look, I'll consider that these numbers:
105, 101 and 225, 255 are different
even though they're very similar
with a difference in only one digit
However, it's okay
I do not like injustice and
I'll give you what you deserve
I've also reviewed
all your previous reports, Anees
They were 98.8% identical to Shamshon's
reports; so this clearly implicates you!
Don't you fear Allah, son?
Don't you want to learn?
Why cheat?
Why this betrayal?
It is for your own good, Anees
Take it easy, Professor!
Before you start the broken record of:
''It's for your own good", "why'',
and "what'';
how many times did you repeat:
''Since you cheated''?
You crossed out many numbers
on the assumption that I cheated
then when you determined the 98.8%;
you concluded that I cheated
Isn't this what is called:
circular reasoning?
Circular what?
Circular reasoning; which means that
the evidence and the result are the same
Since I cheated —as you claim—
you concluded that my report
and Shamshon's matched 98.8%
And since this percentage is high
then it's evidence that I cheated!
Likewise, the myth disciples concluded
that the genomes of humans
and chimpanzees match by 98.8%
This is one of their most absurd
and widespread jokes!
It's an interesting story from the
pseudoscience factory, so stay tuned
How did they arrive at 98.8%?
Since the human and chimpanzee
evolved from a common ancestor
then we can compare their genome
in ways that assume a common origin
With some fabrication
the homology between them becomes 98.8%
and as this percentage is high, then they
must have evolved from a common origin
This means that the evidence
is based on the claim!
This is what's called: Circular Reasoning
Let's follow their five steps
to accomplish this:
First: omitting a large part
of the genetic material where
no homology exists
between humans and chimpanzees
Second: utilizing software
that assumes the validity of evolution
Third: interpreting results
assuming the validity of evolution
Fourth: choosing only one type
of differences in genetic material
while ignoring the rest
Fifth: ignoring research outcomes
that are different
from the desired percentage
The first three steps
are performed in laboratories
while the last two are
propagated in the media
First, we will clarify a matter
related to the second step
then proceed step by step
Please keep in mind
that the word: genome
means the genetic material
of an organism
In the book:
''Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics''
third edition, 2015
which is internationally accredited
in the field of genetics
and taught at universities
you will find
at the start of Chapter 3
a definition of homology
as follows:
"Two genes (or proteins) are homologous
if they have evolved
from a common ancestor."
The software used
for genetic material comparisons
depends "in some form upon
the evolutionary insights
of the Dayhoff model."
Without this assumption it is doubtful
that the claimed
homology percentage
would have been reached
Most database search methods
used in genetic material comparisons
such as BLAST and HMMER
rely on this assumption
So, they said:
"Human and chimpanzee genomes
are homologous IF we consider
that they evolved from a common origin"
which the myth media propaganda
twisted to become:
"Human and chimpanzee genomes
are homologous
SO they must have evolved
from a common origin"
As usual, the magic wand of the myth
disciples changed IF to SO
Let's enter the myth production kitchen
to see the steps of the production process
We will start with one of their
most well-known studies
published in 2002 in
''The American Journal of Human Genetics''
How was this study conducted?
A sequence was taken from
the chimpanzee genome;
with 3 million nitrogenous base pairs
To simplify, we will refer
to each pair as a letter
So, they took three million letters
from about three billion letters:
three Giga base pairs;
which is the number of letters
in the entire chimpanzee genome
They basically took about 0.001
of the chimpanzee's genome
and compared it
to the human genome
Step 1: They excluded part of this
sample where no homology existed
Researchers noticed that around
two-thirds of the sample
was similar to the human genome
so the remaining 28% of the sequence
was excluded from the analysis
as it was difficult to compare
with human DNA
They excluded another 7%
Why?
because "no region with similarity
could be detected"
This means that they excluded
a total of 35% of the 0.001 of the
chimpanzee sample they selected
Imagine, dear viewers!
35% was different and thus
crossed out beforehand
and still the myth disciples
claim 99% homology!
Recall how the professor crossed out
large parts from the two reports
before comparing them.
The same methodology exactly!
Step 2: They compared the remainder
of the chimpanzee sample
to that of humans
How?
Using software that assumes
the validity of evolution
and that humans and chimpanzees
share a common origin
Some people, when they hear:
"There is similarity to a certain degree
between human and chimpanzee genomes"
take that to mean
that all genes in a chimpanzee
were directly compared
to all genes in a human; one by one
i.e. compared the hemoglobin producing gene
in a human to that in a chimpanzee;
the digestive enzyme-producing gene
to its corresponding one in chimps
and so on...
This is not the case!
Instead, they fragmented the genetic
material in humans and chimps
and compared them using matrices
based on mathematical equations
These matrices and equations
assume the validity of evolution
as we've shown
in the 'Bioinformatics' book
For example, the research
we are discussing
compared genetic material
using the "BLAT" software;
a program similar to "BLAST"
that assumes the validity of evolution
(as mentioned in 'Bioinformatics'')
The comparison is not direct; it includes
some complicated details that are
explained in the book
as well as in the original studies
upon which these programs are based
The details include their assumption
about the validity of evolution
Step 3: Once the software results are out
they are interpreted
assuming the validity of evolution
In other words, fragments of the
chimpanzee genome appear to be
different from the human genome
yet, the difference is explained
from an evolutionary standpoint!
For example, these two chains of letters
are different from each other;
they have nothing to do with each other
However, evolutionists might say,
"No, but the reality is that
they came from a common ancestor
who passed down the chain
in its original sequence to the chimp
but, in humans, two letters
inserted themselves
—by mistake—
through a random mutation
in the position
of the red arrow
We'll name this intrusion an 'insertion'"
Just like the Professor
who accused Anees
of copying the number 222
from his colleague
and adding a 6 by mistake
to get the number 2262!
But wait!
Even if you assume this
the chains will still
have differences in other letters
''T'' is not a ''C''
and "G" is not an "A"
They'll reply, "As they evolved
from a common origin
these two letters must have
changed for humans
via a 'substitution' process
that transformed T to C
and another substitution
that transformed G to A"
Just like the professor's comparison
of the number 105 with 101
and 225 with 255
in Anees' and Shamshon's reports;
a one digit difference
between the two numbers
On what basis did you assume
that this actually happened?
What gives you the right to
come up with this scenario?
They'll answer, "It is because they
evolved from a common origin"
Wait! If this really happened
these random processes would have
corrupted the function of this segment
of the human genome
There is current consensus that
long DNA chains are not junk;
contrary to what the myth disciples
used to promote before
the “Encode” project results
came out in 2012
Distortions in the genetic material
usually corrupt its functionality!
For example, if the two chains
that we compared
were two different genes
—in humans and chimpanzees—
then each would have produced
a different but correct protein
with a distinct and
different functionality;
just like the products calculated
by our friend Anees, were correct
yet different from Shamshon's
(Anees' voice): Professor, how did I cheat?
I multiplied my number by its reverse,
and the product is correct; completely
different from Shamshon's result
If I had copied from him
and made a mistake while copying
the result wouldn't have been different
from his; and —what's more— correct!
They'd answer: It is a coincidence!
A coincidence!
Using the same method
researchers compared other segments
of the human and chimpanzee genomes
and interpreted the differences
in various ways
that always assume a common ancestor;
an exact analogy to the professor
basing his explanations
on the assumption
that Anees cheated from Shamshon
They might say,
"One base pair or more was dropped
in the descent
from the common ancestor;"
a process they call: 'Deletion'
as opposed to 'Insertion''
Again, just like the professor believed
that 92 is the result of copying 992
and mistakenly dropping the 9;
even when these base pairs positions
were different on the chromosomes
just like the numbers' positions
were different in the two reports
Other times
they'd explain the difference
as a repetition of some letters;
a process they call 'Duplication'
just like the professor considered
5858 a result of copying 58 twice
Following this process
the study concluded that thousands
of random substitution
mutations took place
as well as thousands of random
insertion/deletion mutations
These so-called insertion and deletion
mutations range in size from 1 to 65 letters
Just imagine, dear viewer
the absurdity of the belief that
65 letters mistakenly
intruded in the sequence
without impairing the function
of this sabotaged sequence
Here, at this third step
in the myth's kitchen
the role of laboratory research comes to
an end and media propaganda takes over
Dear viewers, note that
'scientific' research
like that we just discussed
did not set out to prove evolution
through the homology ratio
but started with the assumption
of the validity of evolution!
They are conscious of that
and of the fact that they're using
software that assumes this
Their research was on the types of
mutations that they claimed happened
to differentiate humans from chimpanzees
Their research question was not:
Did evolution occur or not?
Instead it was:
How did evolution occur?
In other words, how did humans and
chimpanzees evolve from a common origin?
Our problem with such research is
with this false initial assumption
of the validity of evolution;
which we continue
—scientifically—
to demonstrate its invalidity
As for the myth propagandists;
their problem is that
they distorted the research,
turned assumptions
into results and conveyed the false
message that —without any assumptions—
the difference between humans
and chimpanzees is 1.2%
which proves that evolution is true!
Let's see how the propagandists
accomplished that
then move on to the fourth step
in the myth's kitchen
The propagandists presented
the research results as follows:
What is the percentage of so-called
substitutional differences that resulted
in the differentiation
between humans and chimpanzees
relative to the chimpanzee genome sample;
after excluding
a large part of it?
The percentage is 1.24%
Well, what about the alleged
insertion and deletion differences?
The propagandists simply
ignored these differences, because
had they included them, they wouldn't
have arrived at the sensational 98.8%!
So, they simply excluded them
and highlighted only the percentage
of claimed substitution differences;
much the same way the professor
excluded all kinds of differences
between Anees' and Shamshon's reports
and counted only
the apparent substitutions
What is the percentage
of substitution differences in the study?
1.2%
Aha! 1.2% difference!
100% minus 1.2% equals 98.8% similarity!
Accordingly, human and chimpanzee
genomes are 98.8% similar
Thus, the myth was thoroughly cooked;
ready to be served on pseudoscience tables
with a 'Bon Appétit' to those
who allow others to think for them
35% of the sample was crossed out
from the start;
large differences, which they claimed
to be the result of insertions
and deletions, were ignored;
then, a dramatic number was selected
to appear in the results
to fool superficial people:
1.2%!
This is how the 98.8% myth
was manufactured
Note how they present it in tenths:
98.8%
and how they don't round
to the nearest whole number
in a display of false piety
so you appreciate the 'scientific accuracy'
in this solid and sacred number
as they claim
The real number, however
is not 99, 98, 90, or 80%
Memorize this 5-ingredient recipe
dear viewers
because it is used to prepare many
'genetic' meals in the myth's kitchen
For example, years after our study
in 2005
''Nature'' published the most well-known
study on the comparison
between human and chimpanzee genomes
Let use it to apply
our 5-ingredient recipe; step-by-step
The first step, crossing out a large part
of the genetic material
where there is no similarity
between humans and chimpanzees
The human genome is estimated to contain
3 to 3.6 billion letters (approximately)
Researchers simply crossed out hundreds
of millions of letters
from the human genome in this analysis
and compared only 2.4 billion letters
to the chimpanzee's
Why only that portion?
Because it shows the 'best alignment'
Thus, between 1/5 and 1/3 of each
of the human and chimpanzee genomes
were excluded from the start
because they did not show any similarity
Consequently, the similarity percentage
calculated at the end cannot even
reach 90%
The second step: Using software that
assumes the validity of evolution
Indeed, they used BLASTZ and BLAT
that assume the validity of evolution
The third step is to interpret the results
based on evolution
Researchers explained the differences
between the chimpanzee and human genomes
in the same way the professor did
with Anees' and Shamshon's reports:
substitution, insertion, deletion,
duplication and so on
What is the percentage of the
so-called substituted letters? 1.23%
And what is the claimed percentage
of deleted/inserted letters?
3%
Before we proceed...
This 3% of this massive genetic
material means 5 million
insertion/deletion processes
with up to 65 letters each
as we saw in the previous study
So, you claim that millions of random
mutations occurred in this manner
yet still produced a human
and a chimpanzee;
both perfectly and harmoniously designed!
They'll answer,
"Yes. It is a coincidence!
What coincidence makes millions of changes
in specific positions
of the genetic material
without corrupting sensitive segments
in the remaining positions
when we know that a single change
may, sometimes, be so fatal
that neither chimp nor human
could even form
Yet, they repeat,
"It's a coincidence!
Don't you know the phrase:
What an Amazing Coincidence!''?
Anyway, let us get back
to their percentages
1.23% substitution differences and
3% insertion/deletion differences
As the researchers put it,
"This 3% difference dwarfs
the 1.23% difference"
In other words substitution
is dwarfed by insertion/deletion
Now it's the turn
of the propaganda machine
in the production line
of the myth's kitchen
so, let's proceed together
to the fourth step:
Choosing one type of difference
and ignoring the rest
Thus, large numbers are ignored
and dwarfed numbers are emphasized
Propagandists simply
—but not innocently—
ignored the 3% that resulted
from insertions/deletions
as well as other mutations
and mentioned only substitutions
They deliberately overlooked
the most important aspect of all
which is that 1/5 to 1/3 of
the genetic material
is excluded from the first step
and that the software
assumes the validity of evolution
in the second step
Once again
100% minus 1.2% equals 98.8%
There you have it... the exciting number
is proven with no room for doubt!
Another appetizing meal for those
who allow others to think for them
On the pro-myth channel: "Minute Earth"
you'll find a video titled:
"Are We Really 99% Chimp?"
This video explains
some of what took place;
specifically the trimming of areas
with large differences
between the human
and chimp genomes
which was the first step
in our 5-ingredient recipe
Let us watch a section of this video
"The researchers simply excluded
all the large mismatch sections
a whopping 1.3 billion letters in all;
and performed a letter-by-letter
comparison on the remaining 2.4 billion;
which turned out to be 98.77% identical
So, yes
we share 99% of our DNA with chimps
if we ignore 18% of their genome
and 25% of ours!"
Thus, researchers simply excluded
large mismatches,
and omitted large sections of the chimp
and human genetic material,
and compared the rest
Some research conducted by myth disciples
determined that there was no justification
to ignore one type
of difference and consider another
and concludes that the percent difference
should be 4%; not 1%
Now comes the fifth step
in myth construction
which is the art of overlooking;
mastered by myth propagandists
to maintain the 99% 'action number'
so it ignores studies
which show otherwise
Another analysis which concludes
a homology percentage of 95%
is ignored by myth propagandists
in order to keep alive
the exciting action number: 99%!
Another more recent study
presents a difference of 23%
—which means that the similarity
is 77%; not 98 or 99%—
This is also ignored by myth propagandists
for the sake of the action number: 99%!
In 2013, a newer and
more recent study
—where the researchers didn't exclude
sections with mismatches—
produced a match percentage
of, at most, 70%
—as the researchers state—
while the percentage may be lower!
Again, this is ignored
by myth propagandists
for the sake of the action number: 99%
99% is near and dear
to the myth disciples' hearts
as they also say, ''The percentage
of scientists supporting evolution
is about 99%''!
Allah willing, we will
discuss this joke later
Incidentally, it is the same
percent of votes
Arab presidents get
in their national elections:
the same percentage and the
same level of credibility!
Do not be surprised by the large
variation in percentages
as the methodology
in each is different:
Difference in sample selection,
trimming, crossing out;
how the software
used to compare the human
and chimpanzee genetic material
is designed
The comparison is not easy,
straightforward,
or free from manipulation and assumptions
as the myth propagandists pretend
Of course, if you confront
the myth disciples with any of this
and ask them, "What gives you the
right to assume the validity of the myth,
come up with percentages,
and base the validity of the myth
on these same percentages?"
You will get the usual answer,
"Because the similarity in genetic
material is not the only evidence
We have so much evidence
from different sources
such as fossils, and so on''
Ok, let's discuss fossils:
Again: Why do you explain fossils
assuming the validity of evolution?
Isn't this a form of circular reasoning?
They'll say,
"No! We have evidence for evolution
from the 98.8% similarity between
human and chimpanzee genetic material"
A myth with neither head nor tail!
Isn't this the definition
of circular reasoning?
Circular what, dear?
Circular reasoning
Neither circular nor square!
Actually, it is not only the 98.8% that
proved to me that you've cheated
I have other evidence
What is this evidence, Professor?
Ample evidence: 'Success' Vitamins
in tomatoes from the Netherlands
—the reason behind its success;
the pedal in the car with no function;
the reptile's transformation
into a bird;
Riyadh who stole the million;
and the similarity in the shape
between your report and Shamshon's
I actually gave your cheating a name:
"The Shamshonese Theory"
Case closed!
I am now in the process of gathering
more evidence for this fact
Another question:
Since the issue, to you, seems
to be about action numbers
without regard to the details;
is the chimpanzee the only animal
with a 99% homology with humans
according to your methodology
O myth disciples?
No! According to a research paper
in the well-known
evolution journal ''Nature''
99% of genes in one strain of mice
have direct counterparts in humans
This number has a different meaning
from the previous numbers
but can also be used
to impress shallow people
Why don't you promote this number
also; as evidence for evolution?
Is it because persuading people
of chronologically-close
shared origins with mice
is harder than persuading them
of shared origins with chimpanzees?
Is it because this reveals
the absurdity of such comparisons?
Is it because it shows that your
evolutionary trees are worthless?
Your trees which are based on
morphological and structural similarities;
whose comic aspect we discussed
last episode
The trees are also based on genetic
similarity, which is just as comedic
as we've shown in this episode
Is it because it represents
another miserable story
of numbers that differ;
depending on different methodologies
for comparison, cross-outs, and trimming
so you see 99% in ''Nature''
while, on the "NIH" website
you'll read
that the protein-coding regions
are 85% identical
but only 50% or less identical
in the vast majority of the genome
Nevertheless, evolutionists still display
pictures like this!
92% similarity between humans and mice
to convince you that the process was
gradual; that randomness and blind
selection played around
over millions of years
such that the more the genetic similarity
the greater the resemblance to humans
And the "Natural History Museum"
in London, in collaboration with
"The University of Chicago Press"
comes up with with this book:
"99% Ape: How Evolution Adds Up"
Another chapter of science
made to order!
So, we find 99% similarity with mice
92%, or 85% in some parts
and less than 50% in others
There is also a 99% similarity
with chimpanzees
Also 96%, 95%, 77%, and 70%
Choose what you like, myth propagandists
and ignore what you don't like
then come up with conclusions
about the validity of evolution
and drawings of evolution trees
Thus, science is subjugated
to the Darwinian ideology
This is the story of the 99%
Now that you've understood it
dear viewers, you can smile
whenever you read a science magazine
like "Scientific American"
—which 'educates' the public—
that we share 99% of our genetic
material with chimpanzees
Then smile as you hear
Dr. Richard Dawkins say,
"Almost all of the human genome and
the chimpanzee genome is identical"
Smile when you see him
addressing his followers as children;
deluding them into thinking
that it's simply a matter
of a random mutation
which happened by mistake, here or there
that produced the human and
separated him from the chimpanzee
"No difference at all between the human
and the chimpanzee, exactly the same
exactly the same
Now we see another difference
there, A vs. G.
Walk along, walk along...and there are
no more differences in that whole row"
Then laugh out loud when you hear
the myth godfathers say:
"Molecular genetics and genetics
have settled the case
and confirmed evolution.
Case closed!
Dean, you do not approve of injustice!
Dean, I proved that Anees cheated by 99%!
99%? How? Please explain;
may Allah be pleased with you
His reports and Shamshon's
are 99% identical
Is your name Anees?
Get out! Hurry up! Go away!
Come, Professor, let's talk a little bit
(Voices): Anees!
I heard you cheated
and copied from Shamshon 99%
What a shame!
99%!
99%! What a shame!
(Adnan Ibrahim) "99% of the chimpanzee genome
matches the human genome. About 99%!
It is absolutely the closest to us
Amazing! This has undoubtedly
caused humans tremendous pain"
(Nidhal Guessoum) "We found out
that they are really identical
by up to —at least
relatively to "Primates—
more than 94-95%, and some
of them reach a 99% match"
Dear viewers, we discussed, in this
episode, the fallacy of circular reasoning
which is frequently used by evolutionists
regarding genetic material
and other things
We also saw what goes on
in the myth's kitchen:
a large segment of the genetic material
is crossed out, then software
built upon the validity of the theory
of evolution, is used
then the results are interpreted
on the basis of evolution,
then a figure showing
one of the differences is used
to generate the action number
while larger differences are ignored
Afterwards, other studies
with completely different outcomes
than the desired one are ignored
Then the same process is repeated
with other creatures like mice
Then certain numbers that serve
the alleged gradualism story
are selected, to claim that these numbers
indicate the shared origin
Eight steps
"Darknesses, some of them upon
others..." (Quran Translated Meaning 24:40)
But the ninth and most important
step remains
Dear viewer, you might think
that I desire, with this episode
to minimize the similarity between
human and chimpanzee genomes
But, this is incorrect. All I want to
show is that we are dealing with liars
and that this 99% is media propaganda
that some regurgitate
out of ignorance
or willful lies
Knowing all this, it doesn't matter
to us if the percentage
of similarity in the genetic material
is 70%, 99%, 99.9%, or even 100%
because similarity is expected
and has been explained
and no matter how big it is
it never affects our observation
of Allah’s Greatness in His creation!
Rather, whenever we see similarity
in measured proportion and
difference in measured proportion
we remain ever reverent, praiseful,
and submissive to the One who says,
what can be translated as,
"Indeed, We have created
everything in due measure."
(Quran 54:49)
How? We will discuss this
next episode
when see another chapter
of the greatness in creation
and the comedy of evolutionists;
not only in fabricating numbers
but also in their interpretation
This is their ninth process in
the myth factory
Stay tuned
Peace be upon you