More Evidence of Human-Ape Common Ancestry

The genomes of humans and chimpanzees are strikingly similar.  In fact, humans and chimpanzees are actually more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees and orangutans are. 

The chromosomes of humans and apes also show striking similarities.  However, there is a glaring difference that would seem to throw a monkey wrench in the pristine evolutionary picture: Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while all other apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). 

At first glance this might seem to contradict the theory of evolution.  Afterall, if humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor, then wouldn't we expect them to have the same number of chromosomes?

But a closer look reveals a different story.  It turns out that we used to have 48 chromosomes, too.  DNA sequencing confirms that our human chromosome number 2 is actually two chromosomes that have been fused together, which explains why we have one less pair of chromosomes.  

Chromosomes have distinctive sections that include a central region called a *centromere* and ends called *telomeres*.  DNA sequencing not only reveals the exact location where the two chromosomes fused together, it has also confirmed the presence of two sets of centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome number 2.  This is definitive proof that human chromosome number 2 truly was made from the fusion of two different chromosomes. 

It also matches the evolutionary picture perfectly, showing that the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), but then after chimpanzees and humans diverged there was a chromosome fusion event in the line leading to humans, which reduced our chromosomes to 46 (23 pairs).

The evidence for chromosome fusion further strengthens the case for common ancestry.  By contrast, the alternative hypothesis that chimpanzees and humans were separately created requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created human chromosome 2 to make it falsely look like it had an earlier history that involved a fusion event that included the creation of an extra centromere with no function as well as two extra telomeres stuck in the middle of the chromosome instead of on the ends.

Here's a link to more information along with a video explanation: "This Picture Has Creationists Terrified"

Cut off, apparently?

All fixed

I'm not a very scientifically minded person, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if human and animal chromosomes, DNA and other like matter are very similar since biblically every living thing outside of sea life was brought forth from the 'dust of the earth.' Quite frankly, there doesn't seem to be that much difference in our body parts.

Doubt very much there is much difference in dirt world wide but i do remember seeing 'red dirt' in a few southern states i've visited.

   +1

If it was possible to return to the Bronze-Age & interview people there about such questions, I wonder what they'd say?

Wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable for them to think of themselves as the reason that everything around them existed? And wouldn't it be equally reasonable for them to imagine the first people had sprung from the earth in some way.

Such beliefs start as mythology, are transmitted down through the generations orally with many revisions & eventually, written down as 'truth'.

I no more look to the people of that time to instruct me on how our Universe came into existence or how life began & evolved, than I would rely on them to perform dental surgery on my teeth.

In this case it's not merely just the similarities between chromosomes.  The fact that our chromosome number 2 is made up of two chromosomes that have been fused together and that even show two sets of chromosome ends and central parts (telomeres and centromeres) demonstrates unequivocally that chromosome number 2 in humans is not part of an original creation but has a past history--a past history where once the chromosome was not fused, but consisted of two separate chromosomes, giving us 48 chromosomes like other apes instead of the 46 we have now.  It also confirms and matches evolutionary predictions.  The alternative would require us to believe that an intelligent designer deceived us to make it look like chromosome number 2 has a past evolutionary history.

Importantly, you should not feel like your beliefs are threatened by this.  This is not a statement against the existence of God, which science can't do.  Genesis claims that God created, but does not give any detailed information on the specifics of how.  Genesis makes theological statements and claims.  It is not a scientific account nor does it make scientific claims or provide scientific information about the inner workings of nature, nor does it claim to.

It's a matter of simple logic? That's to say, as long as accounts of Adam & Eve & the story of the flood in Genesis were written down from memory, since writing was developed only about six thousand years ago & since Bible literalists tell us that the world is 10,000 years old, those accounts must have originally been passed down from generation to generation.

The very earliest written accounts known are from around 5000 to 6000 years ago, so nothing could have been recorded before that, it had to be transmitted orally.

On the one hand, it is true that both the OT and NT include a period of oral history preceding the written form.  However, it's also equally true that such a fact is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Bible in its present form is divinely inspired in whole or part, and such an argument commits the genetic fallacy of logic.  The proposition itself, cannot be proved or disproved and therefore by its nature must remain an unproven article of faith for those who accept it.  So, I see no productive, useful purpose or point in arguing over it.

Amen to that

@hellodebake 

I understand (I'm a Christian myself).  My point was simply that divine inspiration is something believed on faith that one can neither prove nor disprove, and so there's no point arguing over it.  

No, no problem at all.  We're all here to discuss, so fire away if you have a counter argument or think I'm missing something.  And I'm not saying the Bible isn't divinely inspired I'm just saying no can prove it is.

There are numerous ways we know this, but first we need to understand that anyone who argues that every single thing in Scripture was received in written form with absolutely NO oral history at all--a person who argues this has the burden of proof to demonstrate it, not the other way around, because writing simply wasn't the predominant mode of communication like it is now--we forget this--oral communication was.

Second, a lot of times we can simply tell by context.  For example, take Paul's epistles.  Epistles are written letters, so Paul's epistles do NOT have an oral history.  The gospels, however, were written decades after Christ's crucifixion, and so during the time in between before this--before Christ's teachings were put into writing in the gospels they had to be committed to memory and communicated orally by word of mouth, which was the main form of communication.  

With the OT, we know that all the prophets who went to different kings, nations, and peoples made prophetic pronouncements orally.  That's how it was done.  For example, Jonah didn't write the book of Jonah and send it to Nineveh.  He went there himself and publicly delivered the prophetic pronouncement orally.  The book of Jonah is also written in a third person point of view, not in first person by Jonah himself.  Things like this indicate that the account was first heard and witnessed orally and then later put down in writing.  Thus, even if it was brief, short time before put in writing, most books in the Bible still had an oral history preceding the written. 

*But again, the origin or source or history of how the Bible came to be what it is today is irrelevant to the question of whether the Bible in it's present form is divinely inspired.  Arguments that try to discredit something current on the basis of how it originated commit a logical fallacy known as the *genetic fallacy*.

If evolution is true, there should be indisputable links between man and apes. But all you are giving are ape fossils with a few similarities to humans and vice-versa. That is not convincing. And, if you believe in the Creator, it makes perfect sense that He created some similarities in His creation.