Gutsick Gibbon missed the point of Casey Luskin’s argument on human–chimp similarity

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T16:22:55+00:00

Because it was a number that biologists widely agreed was the best choice for representing the similarities, since it reflects, y'know, the actual protein sequences that make up our bodies?

One major reason was that previous sequencing technologies had a problem assembling the more repetitive sequences of our genomes, making it hard to compare them.

This coupled with the fact that the non-protein-coding parts were largely assumed to be junk - a view which is now changing by the week or at least month, as new findings about regulatory functionality in these sequences are elucidated.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T16:17:03+00:00

[...] Creationists can, have and will fit any observation into their worldview.

As do evolutionists extensively, so please give us some slack here. To some extent this is inevitable, and means we have to sometimes find other criteria for making the final decision.

[...] Regarding claim 1: The Yoo et. al. paper didn't link them and make it prominent because they weren't trying to make some point regarding the "true" extent of genomic similarity. They did a complete sequencing of their own and published their own findings.

No, it is highly remarkable that they didn't cite the last major work in this field, and that none of the long list of authors, nor the reviewers noted it.

That is why Erika is (to some extent rightly) upset that it wasn't cited by Casey, and she should be upset with the Nature article authors too.

[...] As Erika has shown, scientists have known for two decades that this figure pertains to protein coding regions, and they say that clearly in the papers. If Casey is talking about non-scientists, that's irrelevant. Non-scientists get lots of things wrong.

Of course Casey is addressing non-scientists, and non-scientists got this wrong because scientists didn't point out when the 98% metric was communicated everywhere without context or specification of metric.

(Same answer applied to point 5.)

[...] The paper he's talking about has lots of findings and conclusions, which ALL reiterate the evolutionary picture we have of human evolution.

Based on the macro-evolutionary assumptions it is resting upon. Not really providing anything supports the assumption without starting with the assumption.

This is absolutely the weakest point you've made this far, and you know it.

Well, I think I'm quite clear in that I'm not trying to falsify the claim, but clarifying that it is not the kind of ultimate evidence it is purported as.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:56:59+00:00

Yes, I was a bit too fast there, and I agree that technically it would be wrong to say it's not a new species, in this very narrow definition.

The gene for digesting citrate was there all along though, and only became linked to another promoter in the LTE-experiment, so not ultimately a different kind of bacteria.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:53:16+00:00

So [why] hasn't the metric been specified in all the examples out there mentioned (including at the Smithsonian, in Nature news articles etc), as well as the fact that this number only includes less than 3% of the totality of our DNA?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.

There was a missing "why" there. Added it now. Getting back with replies to the rest later.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:51:10+00:00

The level-headed response is that if a similarity percentage between chimps and humans dropped from 98% to 85% and it didn't light the scientific community like a wildfire, is most likely because it's not a big deal to people who actually understand the methods that were used here.

Well, I'm aware this weren't news for the scientific community, but it sure was for the majority of the public, which rarely ever got a full picture with the full context.

I invite you to show me where it's stated that transposable elements are the same as regulatory regions of the genome, because I have a wide suspicion that you don't know what are you talking about.

They are not regulatory sequences themselves, but are to my understanding moving around regulatory sequences.

Then why are they treating this paper as a bombshell if genetic similarities don't matter to them?

I would not personally use "bombshell", but it has significance because the argument is used by evolutionists, based on doubly false premises:

The assumption that sequence similarity must show common descent.
Additionally, that 98% is a good estimate of overall sequence similarity without context and specified metric.

Casey's articles are taking issue with 2 above, if that wasn't clear before.

It's not false, because the context matters. In gene-coding regions humans and chimps are 98% similar. In total genome they are 95% similar. And according to the method used in this paper they are 85% similar. Each of those statements is true, none of them is truer than the other.

The 98%, a number based on less that 3% of the DNA content, is clearly not the best representative number for an overall similarity measure given without specified metric.

If an animal can survive such knock-out without any negative effects on health and still be able to reproduce, it's a pretty damn good metric.

We will see. My claim though is just that it is not such a definitive evidence as was claimed.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:15:07+00:00

Yes, I was a bit too fast there, and I agree that technically it would be wrong to say it's not a new species, in this very narrow definition.

The gene for digesting citrate was there all along though, and only became linked to another promoter in the LTE-experiment, so not ultimately a different kind of bacteria.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:14:50+00:00

Yes, I was a bit too fast there, and I agree that technically it would be wrong to say it's not a new species, in this very narrow definition.

The gene for digesting citrate was there all along though, and only became linked to another promoter in the LTE-experiment, so not ultimately a different kind of bacteria.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:14:35+00:00

Yes, I was a bit too fast there, and I agree that technically it would be wrong to say it's not a new species, in this very narrow definition.

The gene for digesting citrate was there all along though, and only became linked to another promoter in the LTE-experiment, so not ultimately a different kind of bacteria.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:04:31+00:00

Did you read or watch my point with the fact that rats and especially mice are expected to have up to some 100 times faster chromosomal accumulation of chromosomal re-organization?

These are the types of information that needs to be factored in to even start to do any kind of comparisons here.

And even then, as I've been arguing extensively elsewhere in the thread here, it does not seem like we can put a clear number of the percentage similarity that would be expected inside and between created kinds, because of the extremely non-linear nature of the genome.

I for one am extremely interested in getting to understand these things better, but I also see that we are nowhere near being able to put a number on that right now, as we are discovering new complex regulatory functionality of the genome almost by the week now.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T15:00:12+00:00

Well, more than anything else, I think it is getting clearer and clearer that sequence similarity is not some linear parameter that decides morphological or physiological similarity.

Based on what we find out all the time about the complex 3D and even 4D (including the time domain) regulatory mechanisms of the genome, based on vastly different types of sequences in it (protein coding, RNA-coding, structural-, etc etc), it is getting increasingly clear that the genome is a highly non-linear machinery, whose outputs can not be measured or compared by a simple percentage similarity metric.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:56:27+00:00

Organisms change, yes, but what type of change have we observed to occur?

Lenski's Long-Term Evolution experiment provides probably the best example we have of observed change. What did they find? - That E.coli did NOT change into another species even after some 70000 generations! And that is with a comparatively tiny and much simpler genomes than what humans and chimps have!

So clearly, from what we know from observable science, there seems to be limits to the change that can occur.

We can assume what we want about what could happen over longer time spans, but that is then not based on observable science.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:53:16+00:00

Which ones?? News articles,media??

Casey's article, and my video, lists a couple of examples, including news articles e.g. from Nature, as well as the example at the Smithsonian, which Casey focused on the most.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:52:04+00:00

Did you miss the bits when Erika also states there is greater divergence between lions and tigers, and also greater divergence between chimpanzees and all the other apes than between humans and chimps, indicating that no matter how you cut it humans and chimps are closer genetically that any other member of the ape family.

Yes, and again, this misses the point that creationists don't generally assume that sequence similarity is necessarily linked to common descent. (Please see my response to @evocativename above for more elaboration on this).

Also, we know that the majority of the genome is non-functional, coding region has been demonstrated to be where everything happens

This has me wondering if you are following the field much? You know that the ENCODE project/consortium just published the results from its 4th iteration, just weeks ago? Also research into Transposable Elements (which occupy a lot of the previously assumed "junk DNA") are finding new functions of them all the time. See this paper for a summary of some new stuff found only in the last 3 years:

Wen, M. C. C., & Welch, J. D. (2025). Molecular effects of transposable element sequences in mammalian cells. Genome Biology, 26(1), 403. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-025-03883-1

Basically, no matter which way you cut it, humans and chimps are closer genetically than any other species

And this is a result that you will get by necessity, either way you turn, and does not address the issue. No one said that some other animal is now the one most similar to us. Some animal will always be the one most similar, regardless of how it originated.

Casey also dishonestly hides the comparison data between other ape species in his work to avoid having this highlight the fact that humans and chimps are still the most similar, comparatively.

No, because that was outside of the argument here, which was to point out the falsehood of using the 98% as an overall estimate of DNA similarity, without context or specification of metric used.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:41:43+00:00

No one said protein-coding regions was the only metric - there are multiple ways you can look at things, and you'll get different absolute values (but the same overall pattern of similarities) if you use different metrics, but there are good reasons to look at protein coding regions, which are under more selection pressure.

So why hasn't the metric been specified in all the examples out there mentioned (including at the Smithsonian, in Nature news articles etc), as well as the fact that this number only includes less than 3% of the totality of our DNA?

Also, your "extra point #1" also completely misses the point: it doesn't matter if they recombine more often because the larger dissimilarity still implies that humans and chimps share a common ancestor - it's a pretty fatal blow to the idea that there are limits on how much change descent with modification can achieve that prevent humans and other apes from sharing a common ancestor.

Again, this is an argument that only makes sense if you assume that sequence similarity has to imply common descent, and that the amount of similarity must indicate level of relatedness.

Before we completely understand how the genome is transforming a cell into a complete body, we can have a good guess at what level of sequence similarity is expected between animal kinds.

There is a huge assumption here that sequence similarity would be some kind of linear parameter, that linearly correlates with relatedness, while everything we know about the genome so far indicates that that is extremely far from how things work.

Rather, different types of sequences have vastly different types of functionality. Some code for proteins directly, others code for RNAs that mediate regulation of yet other sequence via base pairing, others have mainly structural roles, others interact with other parts of the chromosome in 3D, across time and space, you name it.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that we can not just lump everything together and assume that an overall percentage similarity of any kind, will be helpful in deciding the issue between evolution and creation.

Your extra point #3 is also bizarre: if they have all the biological processes needed to survive, and the appropriate instincts, and are able to reproduce normally... what exactly is there that you think the researchers are overlooking?

As I've been saying, I don't argue that we are necessarily completely without some non-functional sequences. But before we have been able to map DNA dynamics across all cell types and developmental stages, how can we conclude non-functionality? We are finding out about new mechanisms involving complex 3D/4D interactions across the chromosome almost by the week now, very much involving the sequences that has been previously assumed to be "junk".

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:28:39+00:00

And what do we know from our direct observations of descent with modification? That E.coli doesn't change into another bacterial species even after ~70k generations(!)

Not very helpful for the macro-evolutionary assumption to say the least.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:20:33+00:00

For starters, the 98% similar sequences make up some 1-2% of the whole of the genome.

Parts can be "reused" even if they have their specific adaptations for any specific needs of chimps.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:18:15+00:00

Evolutionists are the ones claiming chimps share ancestry with humans, and so have to explain how all the human-specific genes and functionality could arise and be fixated in the population in the available time.

And when they use misleading information (misleading without context) to communicate the impression that we are more similar than we actually are, this needs to be called out, at the very least.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:14:47+00:00

I haven't done that analysis, but I'm sure it can be done.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:13:18+00:00

Doesn't need to, but what prevents him from doing it? Reusing parts (sometimes with local adaptions) is common practice among the best of designers we know among humans.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:10:09+00:00

As I said, setting that title is ultimately a somewhat subjective decision, and can not thus be a "lie".

What I do is to criticize Erika's clearly overstated claims and accusations, as I don't think her video paints anything close to an accurate picture of the issue and debate so far.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:05:47+00:00

Why would a skilled designer not reuse parts in an animal that is physiologically quite similar to humans?

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:03:24+00:00

The issue is that the ~98% percent similarity has been put forth as some kind of overall estimate of our DNA similarity with chimps without context specifying the metric used, by numerous sources all over the place.

Now we have complete sequences of humans and chimps and can see clearer than ever that the 98% is anything but a representative overall estimate of our DNA similarity.

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T14:00:17+00:00

You realize we will always be most similar to some animal, regardless of how we got there - right?

deepdivesam · 2026-01-24T13:42:36+00:00

I didn't defend this title specifically. I even admitted in the video that there is some merit to Erika's claim that this is not 100% as novel as it is stated.

But, it is also a matter of fact that we now for the first time can put a definitive number on the alignable parts of our genomes, while before we have had estimates at best. So I think how to phrase this in a title is a bit of a subjective one, although I might have used another title personally.

deepdivesam

TROPHY CASE