The Ape-Man Similarity is A Fabrication
The completion of the human's gene map today
does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need
not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific
development just as they have done with all others.
As known, the recent completion of the human
gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project was a very
important scientific advance. However, some results of this project
are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed
that the chimpanzee genes bear a 98% similarity to human genes and
this is promoted as an evidence for the claim that apes are related
to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth,
this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists
who take advantage of the lack of knowledge about this subject in
98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading
First, it should be stated that the concept of
98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced
by evolutionists is deceptive.
order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear
a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped,
just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result
of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is
available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped.
No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.
In reality, the 98 % similarity between human
and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a
propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This
similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded
on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic
proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis
has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization"
on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and
only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about one hundred thousand
genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these
genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for
claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just
because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.
On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried
out on these 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison
was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and
published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution.15
However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained
by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method
they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly
interpreted.16 Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also
analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity
rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.17
Human DNA is also Similar to that of the Worm, Mosquito and Chicken!
Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins
are common vital molecules present in various other living things.
The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in
chimpanzee, but also in completely different living creatures, is
very similar to that in humans.
For example, the genetic analyses published in
New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of
nematode worms and man.18 This definitely does not mean that there
is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According
to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in
which man is included, and the Nematoda phylum were different from
each other even 530 million years ago.
On the other hand, in another finding which also
appeared in the local media, it was stated that the comparisons
carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila
species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.19
A headline from a popular newspaper in Turkey:"It is discovered
that we are relatives with flies!". A fruit fly, whose genetic
code has been mapped surprised scientists. The genes of the
fly are similar to those of man's by 60%.
In another case, analyses done on some proteins
show man as closely linked to some very different living things.
In a survey carried out by researchers in Cambridge University,
some proteins of land-dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly,
in nearly all samples, human beings and chickens were paired as
the closest relatives. The next closest relative was the crocodile.20
Another example used by evolutionists on "the
genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of
48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes
in man.Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes
as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this
logic used by evolutionists were valid, then man would have an even
closer relative than the chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because
the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man:
These examples confirm that the concept of genetic
similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution.
This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the
alleged evolutionary schemes, and on the contrary, yield completely
Genetic Similarities Upset the "Evolution Scheme" that
is Sought to be Constituted;
On the earth, there are distinctively designed systems of
enormous perfection within the bodies of millions of living
beings. The vast diversity and detailed design in all living
beings from the smallest to the biggest shows us the infinite
Power of our Creator.
Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as
a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities"
does not constitute evidence for evolution, but rather leaves the
theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher
from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist
scientist who has spent years searching for evidence for evolution
in the molecular domain. In particular he carried out research on
insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary
relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess
many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at
any point in his studies. In an article published in a scientific
journal, he said;
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as
a method superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary
relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead
it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly
progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so
many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the
more important message.21
Based on the recent findings obtained in the
field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael
Denton made the following comments;
Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated
and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have
failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary
biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral"
or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its
relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence
had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution
might never have been accepted.22
Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation
It is surely natural for the human body to bear
some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they
all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water
and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same
molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups
would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that
they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is not the result
of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their
being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this matter with an
example; all construction in the world is done with similar materials
(brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these
buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed
separately by using common materials. The same holds for living
beings as well.
Life did not originate as the result of unconscious
coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation
of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.
In addition to all the information we have detailed
so far, we think it would be helpful to emphasize another fact.
Other than the superficial similarity between
them, apes are no closer to human beings than other animals. Moreover,
when intelligence is used as a point of comparison, the bee, which
produces the geometrical wonder of the honeycomb, or the spider,
which produces the engineering wonder of the web, are closer to
man than the ape. We can even say that they are superior in some
Your Lord said to
the angels, Iam going to create a human being out of clay.
When Ihave formed him and breathed into him of My Spirit,
fall down in prostration to him!
(Surah Sad: 71-72)
Between man and ape, however, there is a tremendous
gap, never to be closed by fairy stories. After all, an ape is an
animal no different from a horse or a dog in terms of consciousness.
Man, however, is a being who has consciousness and will, who can
think, talk, reason, decide, and judge. All these qualities are
functions of the "spirit" he possesses. The most important
difference that causes this huge gap between man and other living
beings is this "spirit". No physical resemblance can close
this gap between man and other living beings. The only being that
has "spirit" in nature is man.
In the Qur'an, this superior quality which man
possesses and which differentiates him from other living things
is referred to as follows:
Then He formed him and breathed His Spirit
into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks
you show! (Surat as-Sajda: 9)
15 Sibley and Ahlquist, Journal
of Molecular Evolution, vol. 26, p. 99-121
16 Sarich et al. 1989. Cladistics 5:3-32
17 C. E. N. 19(1): 21-22, December 1996-February
18 New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27
19 Hürriyet daily, 24 February 2000
20 New Scientist, v. 103, 16 August 1984, p. 19
21 Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular
Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986
22 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 290-291.