The truth about human and Chimp Dna, what evolutionists refuse to tell us.
Below is a video that goes into detail about human and Chimp DNA. Evolutionists at one time were claiming that we were only .2% different in our DNA compared to a Chimp. Sounds really close don't it? What if I told you that every .1% is actually 3 million base pair difference? Now the truth gets put into prospective. You can study this more here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060301_crime
Recently, evolutionist have been trying to push a new number that says we are 99.9% the same as chimps in our DNA. There is one problem with this. We are also 99.9% the same to one another. So this new claim is saying that there are some chimps running around with 100% of our DNA. What a joke.
When the Encode project (link) started to release their results the human chimp DNA difference increased to 5% or if you are an evolutionist that would be 95% similar. However, if you include the major hiostocompatibility complex (MHC) that figure decreases to 86.7% similarity or increases to 13.7% difference. Also since they are finding that "junk DNA" is really not junk after all, and further studies are being done on them, this difference will increase even further.
When scientists compared 77,461 bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) from chimps to that humans there was only 48.6% that matched.
All this is proving what Creationists already know the 99% similar figure given in the 1970's was very misleading. Here is a video example of how evolutionist try and make our DNA sound so close to a chimp's.
Sounds convincing don't it? The trick is: He left out the part about the .1% difference. .1% equals 3 million base pairs difference. He also left out the other parts of the DNA (MHC) that would bring the percentage of similarity down to 86.7%. Now does that sound like we are so much alike as this guy would try and say that we are? The other assumption is that he claims that some chromosomes fused themselves together, and that this "proves" evolution. My question is: Can he even prove that they were ever apart? Without the evidence, this claim becomes an assumption. And to believe in an assumption, you have to have faith. Faith makes evolution a religion. Is it okay to have faith in science? Dawkins seems to think so...
