The scientific silliness of proposing that an ape, or an ape-like ancestor, or a ‘common ancestor’ to both Apes and Humans, became Human; or that Humans are just hairless examples of such primitives, is quite astounding.  There are billions of software coded differences (in DNA), between Apes and Humans.  And, of course, the Religion of Evolution has committed data-fraud, to propose that 99% of DNA material is the same, between Humans and Apes, thus ‘confirming’ the Evolutionary march from Bacteria, to Monkey, to Man.  

In reality, there is a great gulf – unbridgeable by the Church of Random Chance, Luck, ‘Mutations’, or ‘Genetic Drift’ – between Simians and Humans. I would guess in reality, no more than 60% of genetic material is similar, which considering the basic mechanisms which make up living creatures, is what I would expect.  A similar amount would be found if we compared a Volkswagen to a Jet Airliner.  Did the car mutate into the plane?

===

More detailed research has determined that the best genetic-comparison estimate is not 99, 95 or even 90 percent but 84 percent similarity. That 16 percent difference represents 3/4 of a billion base pair differences.  The length of the 23 human chromosomes is about six feet, and the only way this molecular length can be sequenced at present if to break up the strands into lengths that can be worked with, then reassemble the sections. In the early DNA-sequencing work scientists were able to sequence only very short DNA segments.

Thus, researchers focused on DNA segments that they knew would be highly similar between animals, such as blood globin proteins. Even in those genes there was a problem. The chimp genome is much longer than the human genome: there are 3,096,649,726 base pairs in the human genome and 3,309,577,922 base pairs in the chimpanzee genome – a 6.4% difference.

Furthermore, humans have forty-six chromosomes, chimps forty-eight. It is difficult to compare gene sections that are not even slightly comparable…

Evolutionists tend to ignore these large sections lacking congruence in their quest to focus on similarities. Non-coding regions used to be called ‘junk DNA’ back in the days before they were recognized as important segments with critical regulatory functions.

…one cannot glean meaningful comparisons between the common occurrence of DNA sequences existing only in humans, but not in chimps. Thus, the comparisons made are largely within the genic regions DNA, such as those that code for blood cell proteins like hemoglobin. One would expect they would have very similar genes because, for hemoglobin to function, the protein must be a very specific shape. Consequently, a good deal of sequence similarity exists between species that need the same functional similarity. But non-coding regions—which are just as important—show more variations, thus skewing the claimed similarities.

===

The ‘science’ of Data Fraud.  Evolution has always been a Religion in search of meaning.  Equating yourself with a Simian based on fraudulently data and self-loathing anti-Humanistic theology and philosophy, is emblematic of deep psychological trauma.

See: 

Bergman, Jerry. 2020. Apes as Ancestors: Examining the Claims About Human Evolution. Tulsa, OK: Bartlett Publishing. Co-Authored with Peter Line, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. Chapter 5: “Are Humans and Chimps 98% Similar?” Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. & Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.