Research Reveals Human/Chimp Genetic Disparities, Undermines Evolutionary Theory


DNA genesCreation scientists say new genetic findings challenge the evolutionary model and show that humans and chimps did not evolve from a common ancestor.

Scientists from MIT and the University of Massachusetts Medical School recently published a report in the journal Genome Research entitled “Evolutionary dynamics and tissue specificity of human long noncoding RNAs in six mammals.” The article compares human long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) with lincRNAs of several mammals—including chimps and rhesus monkeys.

According to experts, lincRNAs are critically important to cells’ existence and serve many different roles. Not only are lincRNAs found within cells’ nuclei and cytoplasm, but they also assist communication between cells.

“LincRNAs play diverse regulatory roles in human development and disease,” the authors of the Genome Research article wrote, “but little is known about their evolutionary history and constraint.”

According to evolutionary theory, the lincRNA patterns of humans and chimps should be similar, since—according to evolutionists—humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. However, the journal article reports that a significant portion of human lincRNA is unique to humans—not found in chimps or monkeys.

“We find that at least 35% of human lincRNAs show orthologous transcripts across mammals, and 20% are not conserved beyond chimp and undetectable even in rhesus,” the scientists reported.

This unexpected revelation led the scientists to assume that human-specific lincRNAs are “faster-evolving” than lincRNAs from animals. However, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, a geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research, says this assertion does not hold water.

  • Connect with Christian News

“For evolution to appear plausible in the 2 to 6 million years of estimated time between the divergence of humans and chimps from a common ancestor (a mere blip on the scale of alleged evolutionary time), scientists need to have a human chimp DNA similarity of about 98%,” Dr. Tomkins told Christian News Network. “This is based on known mutation rates in human DNA sequence—assuming that mutation can actually accomplish something good.”

However, the Genome Research article revealed that chimps and humans are more genetically dissimilar than evolutionists expected.

“Of the several thousand lincRNA genes studied by this research group, only 80% had similar counterparts in chimps,” Dr. Tomkins stated. “This is way outside the 98% paradigm.”

Dr. Tomkins further explained that lincRNA genes are especially important, because they “provide the meta-information regulating how protein coding genes are utilized.”

“This is why the human genome contains over twice as many noncoding RNA genes as it does protein coding genes,” Dr. Tomkins noted. “It is these types of metadata genes that are the key players in the genome that explain what makes different types of creatures genetically unique. Like humans and chimps.”

Dr. Tomkins told Christian News Network that he has personally studied over 50,000 lincRNA gene regions and found that the genes of humans and chimps are distinctly dissimilar.

“Overall, there is only about a 67 to 79% similarity in DNA sequence,” he said. “It is the shorter lincRNA genes that tend to be the most similar, such as the ones analyzed in this recent study—but even these are only about 80%.”

“The biblical bottom line that fully matches up with the genetic data is that humans are uniquely created in the image of God and did not evolve from apes,” Dr. Tomkins concluded. “Humans and chimps were created uniquely and separately—their distinctly different genomes corroborate this.”

Print Friendly

  • JBP

    The clues in the archeological database, and the fossil records and the DNA SIMILIARITIES point towards evolution. God doesn’t care about that, God made it that way. Why must there be an unimportant argument about this? God making us in God’s image goes well beyond appearances, can’t creationists get that?

    Bottom line is that creationists are truly only ‘skin deep’. Why? Because of a faulty interpretation of scripture? Hibris? Power?

  • http://theisticevolution Franklin B Robertson

    For me, such findings only strengthen my view as a Christian theistic evolutionist. The idea behind this point of view is that yes science is right and that God created the universe billions of years ago. From there, on both the quantum level all the way to the macro level, God has been evolving the universe to what we see today. As far as we humans go, as science has to its best degree shown that an evolutionary process has taken place, and that there is natural and special theological evidence has shown the truth of God through Christ of Scripture and the Church, ergo the rational truth is the coming together of the scientific revelation and the Christian revelation. That is to say, the most rational explanation for man’s beginning up to now has come from God using an evolutionary process to bring about mankind through a specific lineage…from God fashioning the simplest single cell beings to the early mammals to what would be early primeval man to what we see as man today. This does not discount the theological messages of Genesis because 1) it is still God as creator of the universe, 2) man is still fashioned in God’s image, and 3) there was still a point at which God revealed Himself, and that when mankind was tempted, man still fell. Realize that it is imperative that we treat the Genesis Creation story as a theological lesson, not as a science lesson.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Casey, not sure if you read down this far, but since you have an interest in science, you should know that the scientific method (used by all scientists) requires repeatable and observable evidence in order to test a hypothesis (like Darwinism). For forensic study of non-repeatable events (evolution versus design), we can merely limit our approach to observable data. So, can you give me just one example of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution (from one kind into another)? If not, let me respectfully convey to you that you are placing a great deal of (blind) faith in Darwinian scientists, much more faith than I am placing in God, since I can provide observable evidence for His existence. (Expanding universe (red shift), cosmic microwave background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, human, planetary, and universal teleology, Cambrian explosion, etc. All observable and/or empirical.)

    • Casey Braden

      It sounds like you’re asking for an example of where a bird suddenly became a fish, or something to that effect. Obviously, we have no such evidence, because that is not how evolution works. The change between “kinds” (a completely ill-defined creationist term) occurs between numerous species over vast amounts of time and generations. Observable evidence, however, is contained within the genetic code. That is repeatably observable, and can be verified by anyone.

      And the things you list as evidence for God are just strange. How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics somehow prove God? It’s like you’re just listing off impressive sounding science terms hoping to be persuasive. But I actually know what the things you’re talking about are, and you have no evidence that they actually suggest a supernatural deity other than wishful thinking.

  • John W

    Romans 1:20 is correct.
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    Through the creation, we see a wonderful and powerful God. We also see his power. Imagine the power necessary to create a single star, than consider it was God who created the universe. The creator must be greater than his creation.
    The first thing to go in an atheist world, is a God. I live in Realville. People are more prone to believing that every single thing that we see came from pond of slime. Than believe even in the possibility there is a God. Because if there is a God. No, God no responsibility, no consequence how they live their life..
    A house built on the sand of lies, quickly falls.

  • John Dawkins

    Im suprised such a large amount of Christians still believe evolution to be a myth, being christian myself I thought others believed evolution exists and God simply helped it along. There is far too much evidence that evolution exists, and what thoroughly irritates me that the scientist involved immediately claims it must be God instead of looking for other explanations. More so that so many fellow believers are completely disregarding other non believers valid arguments with snide comments. It sickens me that so many people on here take a small amount of evidence and decide that justifies a mostly disregarded theory. Evolution is scientific fact, God is something I believe to be real (why its called ‘faith’), learn to distinguish between the two.