Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / New DNA Study Destroys Human-Chimp Evolution Myth!

Transcript

New DNA Study Destroys Human-Chimp Evolution Myth! · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:25
Hello there everyone, if you're watching this video then you are
0:28
part of the TTOR army. An army that is building itself
0:33
up. 1 subscriber at a time. Now back in 2005, Thomas F Hines
0:40
wrote the book The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, a book
0:44
where it went over all of the various so-called evidences of
0:49
evolution that were touted in the past as being definitive
0:53
proof of evolution being true that turned out to be total and
0:57
other hoaxes. Well today we'll be adding to
1:00
this collection in real time as we take down an evolutionist
1:05
myth. In today's video specifically,
1:08
we're taking down the evolutionist myth that there is
1:11
a 1% difference between the genome of a being and the genome
1:16
of a chimp. Now let's see what the standard
1:20
narrative is. If you go to Google, which you
1:24
see right here on screen, and you type in How similar is a
1:28
chimps genome to humans? The AI overview says the
1:33
chimpanzee genome is remarkably similar to the human genome,
1:37
with an estimated 98.77% of nucleotides being identical
1:43
between the two species. When comparing the DNA
1:46
sequences, that can be directly compared to the similarities
1:49
around 99% according to the Broad Institute.
1:53
Even when considering DNA insertions and deletions, humans
1:57
and chimpanzees share about 96% sequence identity according to
2:02
the Broad Institute. So according to the AI overview,
2:07
the similarity between the genome of chimps and the genome
2:11
of human beings is anywhere from 1% to 4%, depending upon whether
2:17
or not you want to consider DNA insertions and deletions.
2:21
But the standard number that people go with is either 99% or
2:27
98.8%. And as we are about to see this
2:32
narrative being communicated to us by the AI, overview of Google
2:37
is Rongo Bongo. An article has been floating
2:41
around social media recently which is why I came across it
2:45
from Evolution News and Science Today.
2:48
An article titled Fact Check New Complete Chimp Genome shows
2:53
14.9% difference from human genome and I'm just going to
2:58
start reading through the article and then it's going to
3:00
lead into some interesting rabbit holes, the article reads.
3:05
A groundbreaking paper in Nature reports the complete sequencing
3:09
of ape genomes, including the genomes for chimpanzees,
3:12
bonobos, gorillas, Borinian orangutans, Sumatran orangutans,
3:19
and Symangs. I noted this in an article here
3:22
yesterday, reporting that an evolutionary icon, the famous 1%
3:27
difference between the human and chimp genomes touted across the
3:30
breadth of popular and other scientific writing and teaching,
3:34
has fallen. The researchers, for whatever
3:37
reason I'm not a mind reader, chose to bury that remarkable
3:40
finding and technical jargon in their Supplementary data
3:43
section. Now for more on the scientific
3:46
details you might be thinking, hey, weren't these genomes
3:49
sequenced long ago? The answer is yes, but also no.
3:52
Yes, we had sequenced genomes from these species in the past,
3:56
but as the paper explains, owing to the repetitive nature of ape
4:00
genomes, complete assemblies have not been achieved.
4:03
Current references lack sequence resolution of some of the most
4:07
dynamic genomic regions, including regions corresponding
4:10
to lineage specific gene families.
4:13
Or, as an accompanying explainer article puts it, in the past
4:19
scientists had deciphered segments of non human apes
4:22
genomes, but they had never managed to assemble a complete
4:26
sequence for any species. In the current study, however,
4:30
Makova and her collaborators used advanced sequencing
4:33
techniques and algorithms that allowed them to read long
4:36
segments of DNA and assemble them into a sequence that
4:39
stretched from one end of each chromosome to the other without
4:42
any gaps. This has never been done before,
4:45
says Makova. In other words, the complete ape
4:48
genomes were never fully sequenced and they used the
4:51
human genome as a reference sequence, which made the ape
4:55
genomes look more human like than they actually were.
4:58
You don't believe me? From the technical paper.
5:01
Most previous genome wide comparative studies of apes had
5:05
been limited by the mapping of inferior assemblies to a higher
5:09
quality human genome. Consequently, human reference
5:12
biases were introduced. This is consistent with what the
5:16
National Center for Biotechnology Information said
5:19
in 2007 about an early draft of the chimp genome.
5:23
Contags were assembled using the human genome as a guide and are
5:27
therefore humanized in their construction.
5:29
This is an important distinction, as some sequences
5:32
such as insertions, deletions, and gene duplications may not be
5:35
accurately represented by the current chimpanzee assembly.
5:39
Thus, up until now, most versions of the chimp and other
5:42
ape genomes were effectively humanized because they were
5:45
assembled using the human genome as a guide.
5:49
This effectively makes them appear more similar to the human
5:52
genome than they truly are. Can these new drafts of ape
5:56
genomes help fix the problem? Another explainer article in
6:00
Nature seems to suggest that these complete drafts of the ape
6:03
genomes will prove that they are less similar to the human genome
6:07
than has been claimed. Shortly after the first human
6:10
genome sequence was finalized in 2003, a chimpanzee assembly was
6:14
released. This was followed by assemblies
6:17
for other great apes such as the gorilla, Sumatran orangutan in
6:21
Bonobo, and small apes that are less closely related to humans
6:24
than our great apes. These genomes offered a valuable
6:27
opportunity to catalog the genetic differences that have
6:30
accumulated during the evolution of apes, including changes that
6:33
are unique to humans. But because these initial
6:36
releases were incomplete drafts, comparisons could be made only
6:40
between properly resolved portions of the genome.
6:43
These studies therefore focused only on the relatively small
6:48
differences and excluded extremely repetitive sequences
6:52
and large scale structural differences such as inversions
6:55
and duplicate of genomic sequences.
6:58
That last sentence seems to hint that previous comparisons
7:03
between human and ape genomes only focused on relatively small
7:07
differences and excluded the sections that entail large scale
7:11
structural differences. The Explainer article notes that
7:15
this study has fully sequenced the genomes of 6 living ape
7:18
species, enabling long-awaited comparisons of hard to assemble
7:22
genomic regions. Thus, one could expect that
7:25
these newly complete ape genomes would reveal much greater
7:28
differences compared to the human genome.
7:32
Now this is where things get fun.
7:35
What's odd is that as one reads the technical paper, a direct
7:39
comparison between the ape and the human genomes is hard to
7:43
find. This passage seems to be as
7:46
close as it gets. Overall, sequence comparisons
7:50
among the complete ape genomes revealed greater divergent than
7:54
previously estimated. Indeed, 12.5 to 27.3% of an ape
7:59
genome failed to align or was inconsistent with a simple one
8:04
to one alignment, thereby introducing gaps.
8:08
And in case you guys do not believe that the Nature article
8:12
in question says what is quoted right there about the 12.5 to
8:16
27.3% difference, well, let's go to the actual Nature article,
8:22
which you can see here on screen.
8:24
It was published on my birthday this year.
8:26
Oh boy, what a birthday gift this was.
8:29
And you Scroll down a little bit.
8:31
And at the beginning of the section called divergent and
8:35
selection, we read overall sequence comparisons among the
8:39
complete ape genomes revealed greater divergent than
8:42
previously estimated. Indeed, 12.5 to 27.3% of an ape
8:47
genome failed to align or was inconsistent with a simple one
8:51
to one alignment, thereby introducing gaps.
8:56
So Evolution News accurately quoted that part of the article.
9:01
But it gets more interesting. What exactly does this mean?
9:06
Well, first they admit that sequence comparisons among the
9:09
complete ape genomes revealed greater divergent than
9:12
previously estimated. But the technical Nature paper
9:16
considers human beings to be an ape.
9:18
So implicit in this statement is their belief that comparing ape
9:21
genomes includes comparisons between human and ape, IE non
9:25
human genomes. So for the rest of this article
9:29
I'll call humans humans, and I'll refer to non human hominids
9:32
as apes, just like most normal people do.
9:34
Interestingly, 2 reprints of the paper, version one and two
9:39
published last year on Bio R Exif, which are presumably the
9:44
versions of the manuscripts submitted to Nature initially
9:47
and after one round of revisions, preface this result
9:51
with these two sentences. The OFT quoted statistic of 99%
9:57
sequence identity between chimpanzee and human holds for
10:01
most of the genome when considering single nucleotide
10:04
variants. However, comparisons of T2T
10:08
genomes suggest a much more nuanced estimate.
10:13
T2T. It means examining telomere to
10:15
telomere, IE examining the entire chromosomes throughout
10:20
the genome. These sentences were evidently
10:22
removed during revisions for the published version in Nature.
10:26
An interesting editorial decision.
10:29
So what is the paper saying about the difference between
10:32
humans and chimpanzees? That's right, ladies and
10:37
gentlemen. When the authors of this study,
10:40
this article, we're talking about how there's a 12.5 to
10:44
27.3% difference between ape genomes and human genomes.
10:50
They were saying that in the context of referring to the
10:54
current narrative of people saying that there's a 99%
10:58
similarity, only a 1% difference between chimpanzee and human
11:03
genomes. They were actually challenging
11:07
and contradicting that narrative.
11:10
And in case you do not believe that the original 2 versions of
11:14
the article said this, here is version #1 on Bio RXIV.
11:21
It's right here on the screen. It was posted on July 31st, 2024
11:27
and when you Scroll down into this article, we see Section 2
11:32
Resource Improvement highlights sequence divergent.
11:36
The OFT quoted statistic of 99% sequence identity between
11:40
chimpanzee and human holds for most of the genome when
11:43
considering single nucleotide variance SNVS.
11:47
However, comparisons of T to T genome suggest a much more
11:50
nuanced estimate. Examining the distribution of 1
11:54
MBP aligned windows shows that the tail of that distribution is
11:57
much longer, with 12.5 to 27.3% of the genome failing to align
12:04
or inconsistent with a simple one to one alignment, especially
12:08
within centromeres, telomeres, acro centric regions and SDS.
12:14
So yes, that 12.5 to 27.3% difference between the human
12:21
genome and other ape genomes, that was in reference to the OFT
12:26
quoted statistic of there being 99% sequence identity between
12:31
chimpanzee and human genomes. And if you go to version two of
12:36
the article, it says the same exact thing.
12:41
Now the question we have to ask at this point is why?
12:44
Why would the Nature magazine cut out the first two sentences
12:48
of this section, which talks about how this 12.5 to 27.3%
12:54
difference between the genomes of humans and apes is in the
12:58
context of the current narrative of there being only 1%
13:03
difference between human and ape genomes?
13:06
Why would they cut that out? There's actually a pretty simple
13:09
answer to that, ladies and gentlemen.
13:10
It's called censorship. It's called religious devotion.
13:15
Atheists and evolutionists will not allow any part of the
13:20
evolution paradigm of history to be questioned are proven wrong.
13:26
Because if you can prove that one part of the evolution
13:29
paradigm of history is wrong, well that opens the door to
13:32
disproving the whole rest of it. And then the whole House of
13:35
Cards will fall apart because people begin to realize how many
13:39
lies the House of evolution and billions of years is built upon.
13:45
That's why they cut out these first two sentences from this
13:48
section, because if you read the version that published, it just
13:51
basically says that there's a 12.5 to 20 7.3% difference
13:57
between the human genomes and the ape genomes.
14:00
But it doesn't specify if that's in relation to the general
14:05
consensus of there being only a 1% difference between human and
14:09
chimp genomes. But as we can see from the
14:12
original 2 versions of this article, it was in that context
14:16
because they brought it up. I'm paraphrasing here, but
14:19
basically the authors of this article said, yeah, the current
14:23
narrative is that there's only a 1% difference between chimpanzee
14:27
and human genomes. But what we found in our study
14:30
is that there's actually somewhere between a 12.5 and
14:34
27.3% difference between human genomes and ape genomes.
14:40
And Nature Magazine said, Nope, we're not going to allow those
14:43
first two sentences. We can't allow people to know
14:46
what the context was of that 12.5 to 27.3% difference.
14:51
If you're watching this video and you're tempted to think that
14:54
I'm just a kooky conspiracy theorist because I suggested
14:58
that the atheists and evolutionists who control
15:02
publications like Nature Magazine would be willing to
15:05
censor inconvenient truths about the similarities or differences
15:11
between the genomes of apes and humans in order to advance the
15:14
evolution narrative. If you think that's a kooky,
15:17
outlandish conspiracy theory, well, I got news for you.
15:22
I got a nice stack of books here that documents censorship of
15:25
Christians and creationists by atheist evolutionists and
15:28
secular people in all kinds of academic settings.
15:31
We got the original slaughter of the dissidents.
15:34
We got silencing the Darwin Skeptics, and we have Censoring
15:40
the Darwin skeptics. You read all three of these
15:43
books and you will see that censorship of creationism and
15:48
Christians in order to defend the evolution narrative, the
15:52
evolution paradigm of history. It's been going on since long
15:56
before censorship was cool. It's been going on longer than
16:00
I've been alive. I'm going to read the next two
16:04
paragraphs and then we're going to call it good here, as we'll
16:07
see if a statement above that sequence comparisons among the
16:11
complete ape genomes reveal greater divergent than
16:13
previously estimated is true, but it doesn't reveal the extent
16:17
of the differences between human and ape genomes that this study
16:20
uncovered. So let me cut to the chase.
16:22
Look back at those numbers, 12.5 to 27.3%.
16:27
The same numbers show up again buried deep in the supplemental
16:30
data where they compare various ape to human genomes.
16:33
They're findable if you know where to look.
16:35
But should I say buried or hidden?
16:38
From what I can tell, these supplemental data reports that
16:41
the ape genome that is most similar to the human genome is
16:45
the chimpanzee genome and it shows a 12.5% gap divergence, IE
16:50
difference from the human genome.
16:52
And when you look at the gap divergence where the human
16:55
genome is the target and the chimp is the query, the
16:57
difference is 13.3%. Let me be clear, according to
17:02
this study, the human and chimp genomes aren't 98.8% the same or
17:08
1.2% different As for instance the Smithsonian Institutions
17:12
National Museum of Natural History claims.
17:15
In fact, they are no more than 87.5% similar, IE the human and
17:21
chimp genomes are at least 12.5% different if not 13.3%
17:26
different. In fact, the 13.3% difference is
17:30
more relevant since this reflects how similar the whole
17:33
human being assembly is to the chimp genome.
17:38
And with that, guys, another evolution myth goes down.
17:43
Chopped down in its prime, the idea that there's only a 1% or
17:49
1.2% difference between the human genome and chimpanzee
17:54
genome is a complete and utter myth.
17:57
Now, thanks to this new study, we saw Nature Magazine engage in
18:02
censorship of that information. But thankfully the authors were
18:07
wise enough to put out the earlier versions of their
18:10
article on the Internet, well in advanced of this final version
18:14
from Nature magazine. And because they did that, we
18:18
now know the truth about the human genome and the chimp
18:23
genomes differences. It's not a 1% difference.
18:26
It is at best a 12.5% difference, possibly worse.
18:32
And now that we have one evolution myth down, I'm looking
18:36
forward to the future where we can see another evolution myth
18:41
get taken down live and in color.
18:43
And I will be there to report on that when it happens.
18:47
And with that, I bid you guys to do farewell and I will see you
18:51
in the next video.