|
In the animal kingdom the animals closest to human beings in bodily appearance are the great apes. Perhaps, then, we should not expect apes to differ much in their genetic make-up. Most similar genetically are the chimpanzees, or so it was thought – it used to be asserted that up to 99% of their DNA was the same. This has now been described as a ‘myth’ – in the same journal that more than 30 years earlier published the original estimate (Science 316:1836). The connections between genes, their position in the chromosome, and the machinery for regulating them can be as significant as the code itself. Consequently it is meaningless to quantify the differences in terms of a precise percentage.
This has also been apparent from attempts to count the number of genes. The human genome consists of approximately 21,000. But bread mould has half as many, the sea anemone Nematostella has only 3,000 less and the tiny crustacean Daphnia pulex has 39,000 – almost twice as many as human beings. Or one could simply count the number of nucleotides (information bits, like letters of the alphabet) that go into the code. Human beings have about 3.42 billion nucleotides, the green puffer fish 0.34 billion and the marbled lungfish a record-breaking 130 billion. That does not mean that the biology of the lungfish is 40 times more complex than ours, or that it is evolutionarily 40 times more advanced. It does mean that we have a lot more to find out about the mind-boggling complexity of the genome – even of ‘simple’ genomes – and that the insistence that it all came about by chance is about as unscientific a conclusion as one could imagine.
To rub further salt into such absurdities, even just a 1% difference between man and chimp would mean 34 million points of difference. Over the 6 million years that their genomes supposedly diverged, each would have undergone 34 million mutations, equivalent to almost 6 a year. While some were inconsequential, most, it is thought, were selected and incorporated into the genome because they conferred an advantage as men and chimps struggled for survival. But that this is how the differences arose is dogma, not science. And implausible dogma: there is no obligation to believe it just because others do.
Finally, it also has to be borne in mind that the estimate only relates to genes, i.e. the less than 2% of DNA that codes for proteins, not the remaining, much less well researched 98% – what used to be thought of as ‘junk DNA’ but is now turning out to be anything but. The microscopic world of the seed of all organisms, plants as well as animals, is proving to be vastly more complex than we ever thought or imagined. Even the intricate circuitry on the motherboard of the world’s most powerful computer is not an adequate comparison.
So far as outward appearances are concerned, here are 24 differences between man and the great apes:
| 1. |
Small brains, averaging about 400 cc |
1. |
Brain size larger, average about 1350 cc |
| 2. |
No neck – spine joins skull from the back; extensive muscular connections between head and shoulder |
2. |
Neck – spine joins skull from below; head stabilised by nuchal ligament |
| 3. |
C-shaped spine for walking on all fours, sacrum narrow, straight and parallel to spine; typically four lumbar vertebrae |
3. |
S-shaped spine for upright stance and walking, sacrum broad, curved and tilted; typically five lumbar vertebrae, larger than in apes |
| 4. |
Blades of iliac crest (upper part of hipbone) flat and parallel to each other |
4. |
Blades turned backward and projecting to increase leverage of spine muscles |
| 5. |
Large zygomatic arch (for jaw muscles) |
5. |
Small zygomatic arch |
| 6. |
30 facial muscles for expression and recognition |
6. |
54 facial muscles for more complex social relationships |
| 7. |
Small semi-circular canals in the inner ear |
7. |
Large semi-circular canals in the inner ear, for balance in the vertical plane |
| 8. |
Arms longer than the legs |
8. |
Legs longer than the arms |
| 9. |
Chest funnel-shaped |
9. |
Chest barrel-shaped |
| 10. |
Hands have a weak relatively short thumb, long curved finger bones and long palm |
10. |
Strong mobile thumb (3 additional muscles) connected to wrist by saddle joint; finger bones straight; pronounced apical tufts |
| 11. |
Feet are like hands, with opposable big toes for grasping; apes usually walk on all fours |
11. |
Feet unlike hands, used for walking rather than climbing; big toe not opposable |
| 12. |
Short Achilles tendon; medial arch of the foot is low |
12. |
Long Achilles tendon (for running); high medial arch |
| 13. |
Knee joints do not lock upright |
13. |
Knee joints lock upright |
| 14. |
Hip joints do not extend fully upright and pelvis is broad; apes can stand only with legs bent |
14. |
Hip joints extend upright; large buttock muscles and pelvic attachment areas aid running |
| 15. |
Hairy body for heat insulation, no female pubic hair or male top lip; nails grow quickly; fewer sweat glands |
15. |
Constantly growing hair on top of head; hairy male face, pubic hair, elsewhere hair is fine and sparse; nails grow slowly |
| 16. |
Sclera of the eye (surrounding the iris) is brown |
16. |
Sclera is white; eyes horizontally more elongated |
| 17. |
Larynx and vocal cords capable of only simple sounds |
17. |
Larynx and vocal cords capable of complex sounds, including singing |
| 18. |
Ears sensitive to frequencies of 1-8 kilohertz |
18. |
Ears sensitive to frequencies of 2-4 kilohertz (suitable for hearing speech) |
| 19. |
No hymen in female; males mate from behind |
19. |
Hymen in female; vulva at a 45° angle to permit frontal mating |
| 20. |
Mammary glands purely for milk production |
20. |
Female breasts enhanced by body fat for attractiveness/beauty |
| 21. |
Ovulation (fertility) apparent |
21. |
Ovulation concealed |
| 22. |
Birth of young easy and rapid; broad pelvic canal |
22. |
Birth of young painful and slow, though may have been easier when crania were smaller |
| 23. |
No menopause |
23. |
Menopause |
| 24. |
Male has a penis bone (baculum) for erection; female has a clitoral bone |
24. |
Penis boneless, erection achieved by blood; no clitoral bone |
The list is not exhaustive. Moreover, far more separates man from the apes (and the rest of creation) than merely biological differences. Man is a spiritual being, with a capacity for thought and language. Although an animal, he has a nature which potentially reflects the nature of God, and like a god he now totally dominates the rest of the animal world. He has been able to plumb the heights and depths of the universe, even to the extent of investigating and partially understanding his own genetic code. Yet, paradoxically, he – we – are always wanting to deny the divine in our natures: to understand, measure and judge ourselves according to that which is lower rather than higher. That very ability to choose the beliefs which govern our lives sets us apart from other animals.
Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, says much the same when he observes:
'Rights – and responsibilities – are exclusively human attributes. DNA is beside the point. ... Chimps may resemble Homo sapiens in a tedious and literal sense, but in everything that makes us what we are, H. sapiens is unique indeed.'
According to the book of Genesis, the highest reality is God, and man was created by him in order to be like him. He was made 'in his image, after his likeness'. Darwinism is a philosophy which attempts to contradict the obvious differences between man and the other animals by suggesting that in the past the differences were much smaller. It seeks to minimise the divine in our nature and maximise the animal, in the hope that it will seem plausible to imagine an evolutionary transition from animal to human.
That the anatomical differences were somewhat smaller in the past need not be denied. Human brain size (not necessarily intelligence) was smaller, and one can point to a few other attributes that could be characterised as less distinctive (‘more ape-like’). However, the recent discovery of a partial human skeleton dated to ‘3.6 million years’ ago – extending man’s fossil record by a third – shows that man was in existence at the same time as the apes hitherto presumed to be his ancestors. Consequently, there are now no apes in the fossil record that can be interpreted as his ancestors.
Having been endowed with the ability to think for himself, man is free to choose which view about himself to believe, and such freedom is partly what it means to be made in the image of God. The question is not merely academic: which answer he chooses will affect his life.
Our sister website discusses man's origins in relation to the fossil record here.
|
