Is the genetic similarity between humans and apes 98%? Can this similarity be a proof for evolution?

It is claimed by evolutionists that the genetic similarity between man and apes is 98%; thus, they try to establish a connection between apes and man in terms of evolution based on it. That claim has no scientific basis. The claim that the genes of man and apes are 98% similar was made up by evolutionists many years ago and has been used as a slogan since then. The similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee is put forward as evidence for that claim.

There are about 100 thousand proteins in man. That 40 of them are similar does not prove that man and apes are 98% similar. Such an approach is not scientific; its aim is to make propaganda. Besides, the DNA similarity of those 40 proteins is also controversial.

Even if the similarity is 98% as it is claimed, an evolutionary connection between them cannot be established because species has particular genetic codes.

Moreover, basic proteins are common vital molecules present in all living things. Therefore, there are many similarities among living things in terms of those structures because all living things consist of the same molecules. Therefore, it is quite normal that the basics of the genetic structures are similar. That the basic structures are similar is not evidence for evolution but for the fact that the Master of all living things is the same and that they are created based on the same plan. As a matter of fact, there is a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (1)

It does not mean that the similarity between man and worms is 75%. Even if the difference of genetic structure between two species of living things is 1%, that difference means those two species have completely different features. Another important issue to be taken into consideration here is the fact that a gene in the bodies of living things affects more than one feature. In other words, one feature is controlled by more than one gene. (2)

Apes are not the only animals that resemble man. Apes resemble man more than other living things in terms of anatomic structure, horses in terms of intelligence, parrots in terms of talking, bees in terms of art, ants in terms of social life, and penguins in terms of compassion they show to their youngs. Besides, what differentiates man from other living things is not the anatomic structure or some features only. The most remarkable features of man is his ability to reason, to think, to have conscience, to judge, his imagination, memory, love, speech, thought and belief.


We cannot understand what the person who proposes that there is a similarity between man and ape in terms of two chromosomes wants to learn from the people who advocates creationism. What does it show us that some chromosomes of different beings are partly similar?

- That living things emerged coincidentally?

- That all living things emerged as a chain coincidentally?

- All living things are a result of unplanned and random actions and disorder?

What the creationists claim is as follows:

- Things exist and they are artful.

- They emerge in a planned way, not coincidenatally.

- Many aims and reasons are present in that emergence.

- They accept the existence of a Creator, who creates all those living things as easily as He creates atoms and who is Almighty. Such a Creator can create whatever and however he wishes. If He wishes and deems it necessary, he will create a horse out of a dog and a dog out of a horse.

However, what the creationists ask coincidentalists and those who accept nature as god is this:

“You claim that living things emerged from one another in chains and that the first living thing emerged from a single cell coincidentally. However, you have no evidence to prove your claim. Besides, does a species or even each individual not come from a single cell today?"

The similarities that are put forward are not enough scientifically at all to make a generalization that millions of species emerged from one another coincidentally. However, if the issue is dealt with ideologically and the duty of godhead is attributed to nature, then, there is not much to say about the issue.

A person who attributes the duty of godhead to nature will probably say this thinking about his own existence:

“The Creator created me out of nothing; He gave me eyes from a cell and placed my ears. He made my heart and kidney from a single cell and gave me the appearance of a nice human being. He caused me to come to the world. He loved me so much that he did not leave me unattended. If he had done so, I would be a baby now. He always renewed my body and fed me so that I would grow up and become an adult. He made me grow up in such a way that all of my inner and outer organs were always in proportion. Otherwise, if one of my arms, feet or eyes had remained in the same size as I was born, it would have been very distressful for me.

"My Creator gave me life, which is not present in elements. He adorned my life with the feelings of mind, imagination, memory, love and compassion. He provided me with all of them."

"What does the Being who created me and likes me so much want from me? How can I thank Him for all those bounties?"

"Will my God fulfill my desires that reach the eternity and my wish to be and to live together with people I love eternally? I would like to know about it." Then, he will go on and say,

“The Creator, who made me like this out of a single cell and who renews and recreates trillions of my cells each moment, definitely creates whatever and however He wants.”

1 Karen Hopkin, "The Greatest Apes", New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27.

2 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 145.

Was this answer helpful?
Read 12.861 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register