AIG Proves You Ain’t No Kin To No Monkey

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia — are once again battling something that bothers all creationists. It’s the genetic similarity between humans and apes — chimpanzees, specifically.

They’ve written about it before — see AIG Ain’t No Kin To No Monkey. Now they’re at it again. Their new article is The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity, written by Jeffrey P. Tomkins , a new name to us. At the end it says he “earned a PhD in genetics from Clemson University and served on the genetics and biochemistry faculty there. He is now director of life sciences at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

“The DNA of humans is 98% similar to chimpanzees.” Who hasn’t heard that claim before? It’s usually stated as a settled fact and quoted to prove indisputably that we share a common ancestor. But what does this kind of statement really entail, and how do we really know how similar one creature’s DNA is to another? The answers from my field of research — genetics — might surprise you.

Jeffrey is going to surprise us! He devotes the next several paragraphs to telling us how difficult it is to sequence a genome. Then he says:

[I]n the case of the chimpanzee sequence, they lacked good genetic resources and funding. So they used the human genome as a framework. They also based this choice on the evolutionary presupposition that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. This is a belief, not a fact of science. The obvious outcome of this approach is that the chimp genome they constructed would be very human-like even if the actual genome is not.

Aha! The research was flawed from the beginning! But wait — it gets worse:

Moreover, newly published research indicates that the chimp genome is not only misassembled but likely contains significant contamination from human DNA. It is now well documented in the scientific literature that many DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA from lab workers. … Of course, having human DNA mixed in would make the final product more human-like as well.

After those startling revelations, Jeffrey tells us:

As you can see from the way genomes are sequenced, any claims of similarities demand major caveats. When the genome of one creature is used to construct the genome of another, then we have a serious problem that philosophers call “begging the question.” In other words, evolutionists have produced a chimp genome based on humans and then say it looks similar to the human genome.

Yet another example of why those godless evolutionists can’t be trusted. Jeffrey continues:

While we won’t know what the chimp genome really looks like until more accurate research is done, I recently did a study of the chimp reads that have lower levels of human DNA contamination, and in this newer study the chimp DNA is only 85% similar to human at best, not 98%.

Wow — that’s amazing! Unfortunately, Jeffery doesn’t provide any references or footnotes. He doesn’t need them. We’ll take his word for it. Then he asks:

Yet they’re still “85% similar.” What does that mean?

Good question! We were specially created in God’s image, so why should our genome be even remotely like that of anything else? Jeffery explains:

[A] good example is the similarity among computer programs that come from the same programmer. The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead, he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity. We see the same pattern of both similarity and differences in organisms’ genomes.

Yes — that explains it! Let’s read on:

Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it’s not because of evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s creation?

Makes perfect sense! One last excerpt:

Any time we hear claims that conflict with God’s Word, we need to stop and carefully unpack the facts. Then we need to identify the evolutionary presuppositions that drive many scientists to interpret the facts in a way that is contrary to Scripture.

So there you are, dear reader. You ain’t no kin to no monkey! Isn’t that wonderful?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “AIG Proves You Ain’t No Kin To No Monkey

  1. Derek Freyberg

    “The similarities don’t have anything to do with chimps evolving into humans.”
    Well, Jeffrey did get one thing right. Chimps didn’t evolve into humans; they each evolved from a common ancestor.
    But somehow I don’t think that’s what Jeffrey meant.

  2. Jeffery says similar DNA sequences are due to the creator (blessed be his/her/its name) using similar basic coding. Ah, that explains why our air and food pipes cross, guaranteeing that some of the blessed designer’s dearly beloved would choke death on steak each year. If the alleged creator (blessed be he/she/it) were a freshman engineering student, rather than a programmer, he/she/it wouldn’t have made such a dumb design!

  3. Any time we hear claims that conflict with God’s Word,…
    May I suggest that when one hears a claim about God’s Word, one inquire where that comes from. Does the Bible tell us anything about chimps, or about DNA, or the relationship between humans and other primates? (BTW, the word “ape” in KJV English did not refer to chimps, gorillas, etc., which were not known in Europe at that time. Nor to the Ancient Near East.)

    The interesting thing about DNA is not the absolute percentage, but the fact that, among all of the forms of life of today, humans are most similar to chimps and bonobos. We are neighbors in the nested hierarchy (tree of life).
    (As well as more complicated relationships.) God is omnipotent, which means that he could just as well make human DNA like potato DNA – or humans without any DNA.

  4. [I]n the case of the chimpanzee sequence, they lacked good genetic resources and funding.
    It is a well acknowledged fact that chimps are lousy biologists and their genetic tracking labs are therefore lacking in accuracy! It’s also hard for them to get the resources and funding to establish their labs in the wild.

  5. Christine Janis

    Jeffrey Tomkins is well known to many creationist watchers. Here are some debunkings of his claims.

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/chimp-and-human-dna/

    “This is what I like to call, “sophisticated nonsense.” The very purpose of pseudoscience such as this is to confuse the public with complicated arguments that only scientists are likely to understand. ”

    https://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/tomkins-70/

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/creationists-discover-that-human-and.html
    This is a comment from Diogenes (there’s an extended discussion of many of Tomkins’ claims, including a supposed debunking of the chromosome 2 fusion, with many scientists joining in — well worth a read):

    “Tompkins got the wrong answer not because (as he claims) evolutionists ignore sequences they can’t align while Tompkins compared everything. No, Tompkins got the wrong answer because he encountered (or exploited) a bug in BLAST whereby it does not return a comparison if you feed it too many requests at one time. When BLAST did not return a result, Tompkins the moron assumed that the sequences being compared were 100% different. This blunder was IIRC pointed out by our friend Ace of Spades at a Reddit thread. Tompkins was informed of his blunders. He kept defending his bullshit, so it stopped being incompetence and became lying.”

    And this tackles another of Tomkins’ apparently devastating critiques of modern human genetics

    http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/vitellogenin-and-common-ancestry-tomkins-false-dichotomy

  6. Ross Cameron

    Wonder if Jeffrey can answer why the creator made 33,000 diseases to beset mankind? No? This is a fact of science, not a belief. 🙂

  7. God moves in mysterious ways. Very sensibly, He uses similar programming to get similar results. But then, incomprehensibly, he scatters non-functional endogenous retroviruses around the place in such a way as to mislead evolutionists into thinking that their cladistics have been verified. Very odd.

    BTW, “has served on the faculty”, when obliged to a Ph.D., probably means no more than having acted as a laboratory teaching assistant, something that almost all graduate students do from time to time. If he had lectured or had any other senior responsibility, he might have mentioned the fact. But his list of publications at https://answersingenesis.org/bios/jeffrey-tomkins/ includes “Taken together, genomic data for both the alleged fusion and cryptic centromere sites refute the concept of fusion in a human-chimpanzee common ancestor.” Why did this not make headlines? More suppression of the truth from evolutionists! Dennis Venema, eat your heart out; you’ve been fooled!

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    Jeffrey is wasting both his own time and the potential storehouse of science he might find at the AIG. The paltry results he gets is just a mish-mash-mush made up of random samples of DNA.

    What he should be doing is abandon his silly focus on paltry carbon based DNA life, and digging into the real question of alien creatures based on sulfur. As a kid I remember reading about sulfur based humanoid tropes in some kind of a science/comic book. And later hearing the absolute real truth explained late at night, on the old Art Bell night time AM radio.

    Get to work Jeffry. Go go pinch a bit of flesh off the bottom of Ken Ham, and fire up your DNA machine. Just calibrate it for atomic number 16 instead of number 12. We will be waiting to see the results of your research.

  9. Sorry for the delay, Christine Janis. The software automatically delays comments that have a large number of links.

  10. ” The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. ” Is pure obvious BS!! How were chimps made by gawd? There is no word of this in his book o’BS! Many assume gawd SPOKE everything into existence EXCEPT MAN!!!! After making everything, gawd molded a lump of worm s**t (dirt) into the shape of a man (a gollum) then breathed life into it. So actually chimps are superior to man!!!

  11. Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it’s not because of evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s creation?

    I see. So differences between human and chimp DNA prove they were created separately by God, and similarities prove they were created separately by God.

    If this kind of reasoning is typical of creation “scientists”–and it is–then God help them, because logic sure doesn’t.

  12. “It’s usually stated as a settled fact and quoted to prove indisputably that we share a common ancestor.”
    This creacrap lie should not pass unnoticed. Nothing in science is proven indisputably. However when you want to dispute something scientific you have to accept the scientific rules, something creacrappers by definition can’t.

    “Similar protein ….. same programmer”
    And there is William Paley again. Note that for this argument it doesn’t make any difference whether there is 85% or 98% overlap – what’s more, evolution doesn’t even contradict this analogy. But hey, when was the last time a creacrapper cared about coherence? Jeff Joker certainly doesn’t.

  13. One more time:
    A designer does not produce anything more than a design.
    It takes a producer, working with materials, according to the laws of nature, the properties of the materials, and the design, to produce something.
    Take a look at the wonderful designs of Leonardo Da Vinci, flying machines for example, which didn’t ever fly.
    But God, who is omnipotent, whose wish is enough, wouldn’t ever need to design anything.
    “Necessity is the mother of invention.” For God, there is no necessity to be dealt with, no invention, only creation.
    The gods of Olympus and Valhalla, they needed design.

  14. Michael Fugate

    Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) growth and agronomic performance in response to the long-juvenile trait.
    Tomkins, Jeffrey Paul. Clemson University, 1996.

  15. From anatomy to chromosome bands to genome sequences the close kinship of the great apes has long been known. I always marvel at how creationists find fault with science when it doesn’t agree with their view and accept it when it does. For a “geneticist” Tomkins appears to know less than a failing student in a majors genetics course. Unfortunately, the Ph.D. gives him cred with the faithful. But, at least we now know that god had to tinker with his program before he finally found one that made a being in his image. A slow learner it would seem. Perhaps that’s why he had to tinker with virtually everything else as well?

  16. Tomkins is the biological counterpart of Snelling: leading a double life with a series of Dr Jekyll publications in real scientific literature, besides Mr Hyde publications on ICR/AiG.