• Corpus ID: 8927160


  author={Todd Charles Wood},
Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome. The sequence is in >361,000 pieces with a median length of 15,700 nucleotides. The sequence differs from the human genome by 35 million nucleotide mismatches (1.23%) and 10 million alignment gaps (~3-4%). Rather than attempting to explain this similarity, I here propose principles that can guide creationist research in this area. I find that… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity ( Identity ) for 40 , 000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86 – 89 %

Results from this study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed and more clearly in line with the large anatomical and behavioral differences observed between human and chimp.

Recent , Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from ~ 2700 Metazoan Species

Applying this method to the mitochondrial “house-keeping” protein sequences of ~2700 species, it is found that differences among “kinds” were not due to neutral changes since creation, but were explicable in functional terms and they challenge the millions-of-years timescale common to these models.

An Evaluation of Homo naledi and “Early” Homo from a Young-Age Creationist Perspective

Results continue to support inclusion of “early” Homo in the human holobaramin, and the newly discovered Homo naledi can also be placed with confidence in theHuman baraminology is re-examined.

Doing the Karyotype Shuffle: A Survey of Intrabaraminic Variation in Karyotypes and Chromosome Numbers

A critical look at diploid variations within a baramin and the findings are connected to the current creation model of diversification and to baraminology, showing that chromosome number change within this sampling of nine baramins seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin

  • T. Wood
  • Environmental Science, Geography
  • 2010
The present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin.

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

Young-earth creationism has undergone a shift in emphasis toward building of historical models that incorporate Biblical and scientific evidence and the acceptance of scientific conclusions that were

Book review: Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity

Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross.  2015. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity . Revised Edition. RTB Press, ISBN 978-1886653115, 469 pp., $25.



Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

It is found that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles.

A chimpanzee genome project is a biomedical imperative.

There is clear and compelling biomedical value to giving high priority to the complete sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and that of at least one Old World monkey.

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack.

The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease, and both genome-wide analyses and candidate gene studies should be considered complementary.

A genome-wide survey of structural variation between human and chimpanzee.

This analysis expands the number of potential rearrangements between chimpanzees and humans 50-fold and prioritizes regions for further finishing in the chimpanzee genome and provides a resource for interrogating functional differences between humans and chimpanzees.


The claim that humanDNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA has reverberated through the halls of science for decades as compelling evidence that human evolved from ape-like ancestors, but today, scientists are finding increasing numbers of differences in chimpanzee and human DNA.

A Scan for Positively Selected Genes in the Genomes of Humans and Chimpanzees

This work compares 13,731 annotated genes from humans to their chimpanzee orthologs to identify genes that show evidence of positive selection, and hypothesizes that positive selection in some of these genes may be driven by genomic conflict due to apoptosis during spermatogenesis.

Analysis of primate genomic variation reveals a repeat-driven expansion of the human genome.

Orthologous comparisons with the chimpanzee suggest that the human genome continues to significantly expand due to shifts in retrotransposition activity, and it is estimated that human euchromatin has expanded 30 Mb and 550 Mb compared to the primate genomes of chimpanzee and lemur, respectively.

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

Functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo ( paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee).

Birth of ‘Human-Specific’ Genes During Primate Evolution

Several recent studies that address the issue of anatomical and behavioral traits distinguish Homo sapiens from his closest relatives by using different approaches: large-scale sequence comparison between human and chimpanzee, characterization of recent segmental duplications in the human genome and analysis of exemplary gene families.

A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications

It is determined that 33% of human duplications are not duplicated in chimpanzee, including some human disease-causing duplications, and that de novo duplication has contributed most significantly to differences between the species, followed by deletion of ancestral duplications.