Chimp and Human DNA how similar? Helmut Welke

Good evening and thank you for joining us.

Creation Fellowship in Santee has been meeting for 10 years, eight years in person and presently online for two years.

We're a group of people who come together to learn more about the Six Day Creation account that happened some 6 ,000 years ago.

You can find Creation Fellowship Santee as a public page and a private group on Facebook.

You can watch our past presentations on our video platforms at YouTube, Boo, Rumble and BitChute by searching

Creation Fellowship Santee or just CFS 2020. BitChute we have found is the

Believer's best video platform. We are encouraging using BitChute.

When you do find us, please subscribe and like our videos. If you have questions or would like to get on our mailing list, please send us an email at creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com.

I do not spam. I send out one email a week letting you know who is speaking. Sometimes I will send out a second email if there's a news item of interest.

This year we're doing a new thing. We're partnering with Throughout All Ages Ministries. TAM is also known as the 1530

Apologetics. The current state of the public school system is void of open discourse.

Students flourish in an environment that encourages cumulative and intellectual discourse.

This allows them to develop a solid worldview which ultimately will determine who they will become and how they live their lives.

1530 Apologetics goes into schools and gives students another view of history, a biblical view.

At 1530 Apologetics, we are countering the culture by teaching our youths how to weigh the evidence and how to solidly stand on core principles.

You can go online to www .throughoutallagesministries .com

and read more about this important organization and how to support them by donating.

Throughout All Ages has brought us our guest tonight, Helmut Welke. He's part two of his presentation from last week.

Helmut is a member of the Creation Research Society and an ambassador for Logos Research Associates.

He recently was elected president of Creation Summit, an organization that seeks to bring the truth of creation to college campuses through seminars and organized debates.

He has presented creation science in schools, churches, at civic organizations throughout the

United States, plus France, Poland, and Germany. Helmut has been looking at the creation evolution question for over 30 years and wants young people and us not so young people everywhere to hear both sides of the issue.

Welcome, please welcome Helmut and you can have the floor. Okay, can

I share my screen? You have to let me share my screen now. Yes, and that was one of the things

I forgot this morning. Doing that right now. You should be good.

Okay, let's see. I think

I don't need any video, so we're going to start and go right to it.

Okay, is that the full screen that you all see? Human Genetic DNA, how similar are they?

Yes, we can see it. It looks great. And that face is scary. You remember from last week what the trick is they play?

Oh yeah, it's the artist rendition. Yes, but what trick are they playing as you look at it to make it think it's human?

The whites of the eyes. The whites of the eyes are plainly visible, which no animal shows.

Only humans show it naturally. You can look at an animal's white of the eyes, but they look away or do something with the eyelid.

But not naturally and not so much like in this picture, just to make you look at him. Oh, he's looking at the ceiling, thinking about something.

That is a totally false rendition. And as we went through last week, which is basically part one, we covered most of the prominent bones or fossils and skulls that have been used to present the idea that we did come from apes, including a bunch of frauds and mistakes early in the 20th century, but led people, the public and scientists to believe we really did come from apes.

Piltdown Man was one of those frauds. And then there were several other mistakes that turned out to be not ape men, but either completely human or completely apes.

Here's one of the summary slides from last week, famous ape men bones. You can see

Piltdown Man, we covered, along with Java Man and a few others. They were all early 20th century mistakes.

Cro -Magnon Man, Heidelberg Man, Neanderthals, Egaster, Homo erectus, also known as Java Man. Those have been shown to be completely human, human bones.

And then some of the others, Rudolfensis, Habillus, Afriensis, or the Lucy fossil,

Sediva, Arteida, just to name a few. They're not under way to becoming human.

They're fully apes of various types, whether an extinct chimpanzee or a type of lemur.

The bones have not shown that we came from apes. And this is an unedited photo, as is, that I took of a sign in the

Chicago Museum of Natural History. They've got an evolving planet exhibit, which is a long, you know, fairly well done exhibit as far as museum exhibits go.

But they try to show evolution of life. They've got all kinds of known falsehoods in there.

But this is true when they get to human evolution. They drew that red line through that progression, you know, knuckle walking ape, slowly standing up over time.

That has been in people's mind, books, and in our culture for generations.

And now they're admitting, admitting it's just not true.

In fact, I got some quotes for you. This is Jean -Jacques, can't quite see the whole name there,

Hovland. But he is from a professor in Germany in Leipzig.

And he said this, that once popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids becoming ever more vertical, tall and hairless, now appears to be fiction.

Pure fiction. That's what it is. And then this is

Dr. Bernard Wood. He is one of the top dogs in the secular world of human evolution.

He's actually from Britain. But he's been a professor at George Washington University for a long time.

And in 2002, he admitted this in print. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy.

It's such a beguiling image that even the experts are loathe to let it go. But it is an illusion.

Yes, it's an illusion. That's why evolutionists like this who are in the know, they're admitting that the whole collapse, they have an entire collapse of traditional understanding of ape to man evolution.

And in fact, they call it a fuzzy bush. In 2007,

Newsweek ran a big article about the evolution revolution, looking at all kinds of things, but they were trying to get at the

DNA question. But here they admit, quote from the article, the fossils never resolve when the lineages split, but DNA might.

That's their hope. And that was in 2007. And then the next line, the same article, the very next sentence says, human

DNA and chimp DNA differ by no more than 1 .2%. So they thought

DNA was going to help them figure this whole thing out of ape to human evolution.

So what about that number? I think we've all heard it. I've heard it for decades, that human and chimp

DNA are 98 .8 % the same or some 98 .5, something like that, less than 1 .5

% difference. And so that's been used again and again, even if they don't have all the fossils lined up the way they'd like.

That's been used as their fallback, that we did come from apes. We're just too related. So what we're going to do is do a quick review of some hominid fossils.

That's what I did last week. But the DNA issue has three points, 98 % similarity, we'll look at that, the fusion site and human chromosomes, and how long would it take to actually evolve chimp

DNA to human DNA. Those are the three questions we'll look at tonight. So there is an assumption out there because everybody's heard it so often, including scientists who should know better.

They've just heard it so often that they just, they don't show it or they don't question it anymore.

So is that true? Human genome was not even mapped until 2001.

And the chimp genome was not even coded or mostly mapped until 2005. In fact, the chimp genome is not even finished as of today.

You know, there was a lot more money to study human DNA to map the human genome.

And that was pretty much mapped until by 2001. But people were saying a human and chimp

DNA were the same well below before that in the 1990s. So how could they say that if we didn't even know that we had the human genome map and we didn't even have any clue of the chimp genome.

How could they know that in 98 .8? We'll get into that. But more importantly, when they did get around to working on the chimp genome, and there isn't as much funding for this, so there's fewer scientists working on it, but they did to get a head start because they believe we come from, humans come from chimps.

They started with the human genome as a scaffold or the framework. And as we got coded pieces of chimp

DNA, they tried to fit it into the human genome framework. And then it also came out as we were working on chimp

DNA and trying to get it mapped. This is not an easy process, it's very time consuming, a lot of chemicals and a lot of lab work.

But it also has come out that there was a lot of human DNA contaminated in the chimp samples that they were trying to map.

So they announced they had it pretty much done in 2005. But the years after that we found out that their assumption was faulty, that they just assumed we could use the human genome as a scaffold.

And then secondly, they had human DNA. I mean, you know, people in the lab, you know, they could breathe on a sample, they might touch it, they might have their gloves on, but there's still a lot of human

DNA floating around a lab full of humans. And so there was human DNA contamination that made some of their samples look more human like than it really is.

And as I mentioned, the chimp DNA mapping is still incomplete. It is still not all done.

But the surprising results are, as we do get some of the chromosomes from chimps mapped, they are not matching at all with what they think is the corresponding human

DNA. This is Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins. He's a geneticist who worked out at Clemson University.

He was actually in charge of their lab for many years. And he said the chimp genome was literally put together to resemble the human genome.

That's that scaffolding. And the quote is, this little known fact was accomplished by taking small snippets of DNA produced after sequencing and lining them up on the human genome, snippets of the chimp.

The human genome guided the researchers throughout chimp genome assembly process.

That is working with an unknown and unproven assumption. When the bones didn't already prove this, you are working on a pretty faulty idea here.

And then here's a quote that is as early as 2005. The single nucleus, this is actually one of the results in September of 2005.

They announced that they had the initial sequence of chimpanzee genome comparison with the human.

And in their headline or in their basic summary document, they said the single nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1 .23

% between copies of human and chimp genome with 1 .06 less corresponding fixed divergence.

That difference of 1 .23%, that's what the media grabbed.

That's what they said. Human and chimps are almost 99 % DNA. They said it was announced in Time 2006, barely a year later.

They all jumped on that number. But in 2012, it continues to be out there.

It says ever since in Science Magazine in 2012, an article by Ann Gibbons says, ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99 % of our

DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives. That is still being repeated based on that little bit of false assembly that they started in 2005.

But they didn't read the rest of the article, that they didn't have all the chimp DNA done. They only had some initial results.

And they were comparing portions of DNA that they already knew were similar. But yet, this number, this 99 or 98 .8,

has been living and taking on a life of its own in Science Magazines and in our culture. In fact, just in 2020, there was a debate between Michael Behe, who is a

Christian, and he does not believe in evolution. He's famous for the book, Darwin's Black Box. Joshua Swamidas is a

Christian. I have met him. But he believes that evolution is true. And he defends it.

He's a professor down in St. Louis. So they had this debate. And in this debate, the reason

I'm mentioning it is that in the debate, they talked about some areas where they disagree and don't disagree.

And then Swamidas said, humans and chimps are 98 % similar genetically.

And unfortunately, that was never challenged. Because by 2020, we knew, we know that is not true.

But it's so all around us. And it's used to cover this idea that we came from chimps, even if we don't have the right fossils to back it up.

See, it begins with the assumption that we are from the chimps. So when you start with the wrong starting point, of course, you're going to end up with a bad conclusion.

That's always been the case in science, and in business, and any other field of study you can think of.

Well, we came from the chimps. So we must have similar

DNA, because at one time, we had the same DNA in our most recent common ancestors, they say.

But in some of those early studies, some of the more prominent ones, they only looked at 97 genes, compared 97 human genes, which are small snippets of a chromosome, and compared it to known similar ones in the chimp.

But we have about 20 ,000 genes that code for proteins, and as many non -coding genes, over another 20 plus thousand.

Basically, the final calculation ignored 96 % of the human genome.

And yet everybody runs with this number on a very tiny sample that was faulty in how it was put together, and faulty in the assumptions behind it.

It's one thing that they did, is they counted only sections of DNA where DNA code letters are matched or substituted one, excuse me, where they are substituted one from one.

They ignored nucleotides in a single letters of DNA that are called insertions or deletions, or indels, piece of DNA that has been inserted in one of the samples, and were deleted in the other.

And of course, they ignored 96 % of the genome. Let me try to explain this issue of indels.

Up here in the simple substitution, we have AGT, G, TAC, and that compares with maybe a section of a gene that has similar letters,

AGT, but then a substitution, G substitutes an A, and you have a TAC continuing.

That they did count as a difference. But then there's something called an insertion or a deletion.

They did not count that. And it is difficult to count mathematically when you're comparing differences.

Here we have an AGT, G, TAC, but here that G is missing.

So up there, the substitution they count, down here, the insertion or a deletion in the other one, well,

I just didn't know how to count it, so they didn't. They just assumed it's the same because everything around it's the same. It's like comparing two different sentences.

In one sentence, you have the word no. The other sentence, the word no is deleted.

Do you think the meaning of the two sentences are gonna be very much the same? And some of these differences that they deleted, these indels or these nucleotides have been added in one or the other.

Some of these indels or inserts are up to 300 base pairs long, not just one letter like in my example with the

G. 300 base pairs. Now you're talking about sentences, a whole paragraph, a whole if -then -else sequence perhaps.

Who knows? We don't know. We can't read AGTC. We know that's how

DNA is made up, but we can't just get up our codebook and read it. It's not that simple.

Well, they should have known something was wrong because in 2003, in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, an article did appear.

And they said that sequence analysis confirms the existence of a high degree of sequence similarity.

That's what they want. However, and importantly, this 98 .6

% sequence identity drops only 86 .7, taking into account multiple insertions, deletions.

So in this paper, they did identify some of these insertion deletions and tried to account for it and said, well, gee, that only leaves us with about 86 % identity, comparable identical.

And when you consider the entire genome, which we didn't have completely mapped, certainly not the monkey.

They only were, again, comparing only sections of DNA at this point. They already were at 86 % difference, but that's not the number that you and I heard about for decades.

And Swami Das apparently not either. So they just assumed it.

In one of the comparisons, they compared shim chromosome number 22 with human chromosome 21.

And there was a 1 .44 % different single base substitution. Okay, so that confirms our 98 point something percent difference.

But again, they ignored, and they documented 68 ,000 insertion and deletions.

Again, some of these are up to 300 base pairs as one insertion or deletion.

The genetic changes after speciation and biological sequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized.

Yes, of course. Of course, at that point, we still thought there was a lot of junk

DNA in our DNA, but now we know that's not true. So people have been researching this.

And at one point in 2012, a leading primate evolutionist, he believes the story,

Todd Price at Emory University, he said, it is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought.

Their genomes are not 98 or 99 % identical. They're not.

And we knew this already by 2012. Yeah, in 2020, people still say that they are.

A lot of things were happening in the late 2010s, 2013, 18, as people were trying to do this.

A lot of the researchers, both secular and creation believers, who are good scientists, they use a government program that analyzed

DNA sequences. Again, this is a very complex thing. And they had a program where you could try to get some sequences and compare it.

Well, it came out much later that this NIH government program had a series of errors in it and gave bad results.

So people on both sides of this issue had some bad results.

But that has since then been cleaned up. Plus, we continually update the chimp genome.

We're knowing more about it. And we're getting to understand a little bit about the role of these indels and immune system reactions, which is very interesting in our systems.

So where are we at? This is Dr. Richard Boggs, a PhD in genetics over in England at Oxford.

He is an evolutionary biologist. And he's a researcher at the Royal Botanic Gardens.

He put on his website an article where he explains some of his own research and the analysis he did.

And he put it up in 2018. And this was his title page, How Similar Are the

Human and Chimp Genomes? And one of the things he says is the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one -to -one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84 .4%.

This is from an evolutionist. He is confirming what others have said, that they are not one or 2 % different.

Now, he's still coving out to this 84 .4%. And you got to remember, there's a lot of difficulty in comparing these genes directly because we cannot read them like a book and translate them.

It involves a lot of chemical analysis, a lot of detailed work in a laboratory.

But his understanding came up of what he could compare is 84 .4%.

That is huge. That's closer to that number back in 2002 that others were trying to say.

Now, about the same time, and I quoted Dr. Tompkins before, he has his PhD in genetics from Clemson University.

He was on their faculty for the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry for a decade. He's published 57 secular research papers and peer -reviewed scientific journals.

Dr. Tompkins has seven chapters in scientific books in these areas, genetic, genomes, and proteomics.

And for three years, he was the director of the Clemson Environmental Geonomics Laboratory. So he knows his stuff.

Well, he came up with some similar numbers as Dr. Buggs did over in England.

He published in the Answers Research Journal, which is a peer -reviewed science journal.

And he did a comparison of 18 ,000 of some of the available data that's publicly, public databases of chimpanzee genome sections, and then use various programs to compare them to the human.

And he came up with the alignable regions of the chimpanzee sequencing contigs were only 84 .4

% identical to the respective matches in the human. He independently came up with the same number as Dr.

Buggs over in England. And this, again, is where you can compare direct -to -direct.

This is big. These are big differences when you consider we have two of three billion base pairs in our

DNA altogether. Dr. Thompson continues, in addition, on average, only about one third of each contig could be aligned using liberal gap extension parameters.

In other words, you're trying to be generous here as we compare them section for section. And he says, thus, the 84 .4

% nucleotide identity of the alignments is not an indicator of overall genome similarity because it does not include the regions of the contigs that are so different they are not alignable.

And that brings up a key point. Human and chimp

DNA have very different structures. There's big differences, and we're going to get into one of those.

So where you can align them and compare them, both

Dr. Buggs, Dr. Thompson came up with this 84 .4 % comparison saying that, yeah,

OK, we can align these. But Thompson is also quick to point out, man, there's a part there we can't even compare, it's so different.

Thompson just runs with the 15 % and says this 15 % DNA difference between humans and chimps is a discrepancy that can't be ignored when no more than about a 1 % difference is required to make human evolution seem at all plausible.

You're talking about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, 15 % different, at least, where we can compare them.

Think of all the changes that have to go through. If some chimp -like creature in our past was mutating and you had the right mutations and it had to then select those mutations and they had to be fixated into the population so that they could slowly become more human, stand up like they wanted

Lucy to do. Well, that is monstrous. If you're only talking about a 1, 1 .2

% difference, well, then people can say, oh, yeah, OK, I guess that might seem possible in three or four million years.

We'll find out that even that's not possible. 15 % is big. That's probably why you don't hear about it, even though it's in the science journals.

So for summary, on this part of our talk, small sections of DNA were cherry -picked for comparison, sections that were already known to be similar.

And then when they made the comparison, they ignored the indels. And then the first chimp DNA models were based on the human genome evolutionary biased shortcuts.

Sometimes it's good to use shortcuts in science, but not when your whole thesis, your whole bias that you're trying to prove something is what your beginning point is.

That's circular reasoning, isn't it? So this is where the 98 .8 % came from, cherry -picking small sections of DNA and ignoring the insertions and deletions.

That's where that number came from. And unfortunately, it has a life of its own now.

No one should use that number anymore. If you hear about it, tell them, oh no, science has proved that wrong.

We're at most 85 % similar. And that means we probably even likely less similar than 85 % because there's so many parts of our

DNA between chimps and humans that you can't compare it. They're just totally different.

Like trying to compare a five -story house with a log cabin. Yeah, there's some parts of it that might be similar, but the structure is different.

And here's one of those points. Chimps have 24 sets of chromosomes.

Humans have 23. That's big difference right there. The way the entire program, if you want to call it that, is arranged and aligned is different.

You've heard of the organization 23andMe along with Ancestry .com. They are collecting data and giving you an idea of your past through your

DNA. Well, that 23 numbers because we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimps have 24 sets.

Normal human beings, 23 pairs. Normal chimps, 24. Oh, and all monkeys and gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Their whole design makeup in terms of their blueprints to make them in the chromosome in the

DNA is already different. So what did evolutionists say?

Well, they said, well, you know, we still believe we came from a common ancestor. So two chimp chromosomes must have fused together in one human chromosome at some point in our evolutionary history.

So instead of 24 pairs, two of them merged into one and that's how we ended up with 23.

Oh, what a fantastic story. Storytelling is what apparently what evolutionists do best when they don't have any proof either way.

So here's part of the story. The human chromosome number two is a relatively long chromosome.

There it's modeled in red for you. Just give you an idea. And then chimp chromosome 2A and 2B, they picked those letters on purpose, are relatively shorter.

And they decided that 2A and 2B must have fused together in some part of its evolution, our evolutionary past.

So here's the story. The first two on the top, we have chimp chromosome 2A and 2B, and we've got the two of them lined up there.

And somehow during replication or something, they got merged end to end.

And then you have a fusion site, and then you have to have human chromosome two.

Now the lengths are not to scale here. 2A plus 2B is actually longer, considerably longer than just human two.

But let's go with it. But I'm going to introduce another concept here. If you remember seeing any videos of chromosomes dividing and then coming back together, each chromosome has what's called a centromere.

That's represented as the thin spot in every length of a chromosome. For chimpanzees to have been or some common ancestor to have made it, to have reproduced, every chromosome has to have a centromere somewhere in it.

So that's how they know when they divide and then come back together. That's how they find each other and line up according to the centromere.

So 2A had a centromere somewhere and 2B has one. Human chromosome two apparently only has one.

But if they fuse together, there's two things we can look for. We can look for the actual fusion site where these went head -to -head, merged somehow.

But if there were two centromeres before and only one is active now, there should be some evidence of a cryptic or non -functional centromere in human chromosome two.

Let's explain that. If you've ever heard the word telomere, those are the ends of our chromosomes.

Here's a couple of chromosomes lined up. There is the centromeres that shows how they match up so that their lengths, beginnings and ends all are correctly aligned.

And at the very end, we have a series of repeating DNA strands that kind of signal, oops, here

I'm coming to the end of a chromosome. And these are pretty long strands. They can be thousands long and they're called the telomeres at the end of every chromosome.

And somehow they're saying that as these telomeres and these chromosome pairs split during reproduction process and then come back together, somehow these telomeres of 2A and 2B must have intertwined, pulled each other together wrongly.

And then instead of 2A and 2B, we have chromosome two.

Nice story. Is there any science to this? Is there anything that even makes this seriously realistic?

Well, they can get tangled, but that's rarely, but that causes problems. And it's not a good thing when they do.

Here's the other point, the centimere. Here's the actual electron microscope photo on the right.

And then the diagram while the DNA strand all twisted up in the section of a chromosome.

And the centimere, again, it's also very important because it shows how they line up.

There's always a short and a long section. So if there was a fusion site in human chromosome two and that we had the result of a monkey, that something went wrong in reproduction, chromosome 2A and 2B merged, we should find evidence of a fusion site.

In other words, where only telomeres sequences are, and they seem to be repeating and seem to be long enough to be the telomere ends of two previous chromosomes.

But we should also find a centimere that's not being used.

Like in this example, the one on to the right, the one from chimp chromosome 2A to 2 is being used in human chromosome two.

But this leftover, which has very unique characteristics, is also important.

But note the length 2A plus 2B is 24 million base pairs of chimp chromosome 2B are missing human chromosome

E. We don't know what they do, but like I said, we can tell the lengths of these chromosomes. And two is shorter than 2A plus 2B.

That's the issue, the fusion site and then a missing centimere.

Got it? Two things we want to look for. Well, Dr. Tompkins, who knows how to do this work, he published a paper on the alleged chromosome 2 fusion site, and he's studying it in detail and actually being confirmed by others that, wait a minute, this doesn't look like the fusion site at all.

This is not long sections of telomeres that don't do anything other than signal they're there.

What he has found is that the fusion site, which does have some telomere or a very short section of telomere appearing, strands or nucleotides, the whole thing is actually a functional

DNA binding domain. And there is the technical literature if you ever want to look it up. It is expressed in 255 different cells and our tissue types.

This is an important gene. And remember, a gene is a section of a chromosome. And this one's important.

It's not just two parts hanging together by fused telomeres. The whole thing, including the supposed fusion site, which isn't long enough to be telomeres from two different chromosomes, the whole thing is functional.

It's doing something. It's an expressed gene that apparently is very important.

This alone completely refutes the claim that human chromosome 2 is the result of an ancestor telomeric end -to -end fusion.

You're not going to get a very important functional binding domain with gene within the chromosome if it was once two different chromosomes doing different things.

This is totally ridiculous if anybody who understands binding domains and gene expression.

The purported fusion site is functional. It's being used. There's no sign of the long telomere sequences of the past 2A and 2B getting mixed up.

There's no sign of that. That is missing lots of stuff. Plus the chimp view of 2A and 2B is so much longer, a million base pairs.

It's now missing. They must have been doing something. And apparently they do do something in chimps.

But human chromosome 2 is quite different. Has no sign of a fusion site, no sign of long telomere sequences, and there's no sign of an unused centromere site in human chromosome 2.

That blows this idea out of the water. It's not scientifically possible.

Humans could only have 23 pairs. All apes and chimps have 24 chromosome pairs.

So we've got two reasons. Can't compare them. We've got major differences. The 23 chromosome pairs versus 24.

And then now, well, okay, let's say somehow there was some evolution involved. How long does it take to change an ape -like creature into a human -like creature to us?

And how much DNA would have to change? Because we can get an idea of how much DNA makes a chimp a chimp and how much humans is used to make us human.

You were talking about millions of new genetic words, words that are changed and inserted to make this possible to go from a knuckle -walking chimp with a relatively small cranial capacity to an upright walking.

Remember last week, we kind of covered that. So many things have to change. The feet are different.

We don't have a thumb on our feet like chimps and apes do. The knee is different.

The hips are different. The ankle is different. Let alone the brain and the ability of speech.

It's all different. But let's say this would somehow happen. How long would it take?

That's the question we're gonna kind of come to. In fact, this problem is called the wait time problem.

How long do you have to wait for enough changes in chimp -like

DNA to become human -like DNA? This was actually researched in 2010 by a leading evolutionary biologist.

And the title of his paper is The Central Problem in Evolutionary Theory Concerns the Mechanisms by Which Adaptations Requiring Multiple Mutations Emerge in Natural Populations.

Again, it's like Behe's black box. You need many things have to change in order for a new function to really work like walking upright and so much more.

That was 2010. So this question though has still been around and it's called the wait time problem.

Even if you accounted for the differences today, you know, at least 15%, the structural differences such as 24 versus 23 chromosomes.

But how long would it even take? Now, some people assume that there's only 2 .5 % difference, which is again, 75 million letters and a 3 billion base pair genome.

Dr. John Sanford, who is an expert in genetics, he invented the gene gun. I reference him a lot in my talk on human genetics and the

Bible. Well, he and a colleague, they actually, some colleagues, they actually published in a secular peer -reviewed scientific journal in 2015.

And they were approved and published. And it was an update on the waiting time problem in a model hominin population.

Basically, they were trying to figure out some very sophisticated simulation and understanding of what we know about what it takes for mutations to pop up and then become established in a population.

So let me just read this and think about it. Dr. Sanford says, we simulated a classic pre -human hominin population of at least 10 ,000 individuals.

Okay, that's part of the evolutionary story. Somewhere in Africa, there were 10 ,000 individuals who eventually became human, modern humans.

And the generation time, they said 20 years, you know, between having the next generation of children. And a very strong selection.

In other words, they gave the evolutionary story a good positive advantage here, at least 50%.

So they said that random point mutations were generated within the starting string.

And we're only talking about one string of DNA. When a target string arose, in other words, something that was good, it happened by chance.

It was signed a reproductive advantage. That's the story. Natural selection picks the good mutations and weeds out the bad.

When natural selection had successfully amplified an instance of the target string to the point of fixation, the experiment was halted and waiting time statistics were tabulated.

This is a key point. You cannot just wait for a single mutation or a series of mutations to occur in one individual.

It has to become fixed in the population. Even if it's a very good mutation, if that individual is not able to reproduce and have that good mutation pass on to another generation to the point that it becomes dominant in the population, it has to become a fixated point, a dominant new mutation in this population of 10 ,000 individuals who supposedly are on their way to becoming human.

You cannot just have the occurrence of one mutation happening that you think is good.

You need multiple mutations and then they've all got to be fixed identically across a population.

That's what they're trying to figure out. How long did that really take to do? How long? Well, the evolutionary guess is that it was three to three and a half million years ago that we went from a

Lucy type beginning to stand up to human. That's their standard story. Well, they looked in this simulation at a couple of different scenarios just to establish a string of two nucleotides, the two right ones out of all the possible mutations.

I need two in a row that are just right. How long do you think that took to become established in this population?

Pick a number. A few hundred thousand years? No, this is very sophisticated simulation and the answer was 84 million years.

And that's just for two. How about five? They simulated that.

They're just looking for five of the correct nucleotides to change to be mutated by chance and then natural selection, given all the advantages, it's going to pick them and then get established in this population.

How long do you think that on average took? Two billion years. That's ridiculous.

The waiting time problem alone is a huge problem with this story of ape to human evolution.

And most scientists know about it. When Dr. Sanford published this article, he was approached by several of his colleagues, atheistic or evolutionary -believing geneticists who wanted to see the source code.

He shared with them the source code and made it open. They all were able to understand this. They were able to look at this and they started asking questions about this and that.

Dr. Sanford and his team answered all the questions. And then they asked him, well, what do you think of the results?

The wait time is a big problem. How'd the evolutionary geneticists respond?

Crickets, silence, no answer. There is no answer. This alone is a big problem, the wait time problem.

Using the most generous feasible parameters in their simulation settings, the waiting time was consistently prohibitive.

You don't have enough billion years in the age of the universe to go from just a complete chimp genome to a human genome.

It's not possible. In their conclusion, they write, we show that the waiting time problem is a significant constraint on macroevolution of the classic common population.

Routine establishment of specific beneficial strings of two or more nucleotides becomes very problematic.

In other words, there is not enough time for random mutations and natural selection to change some type of ape

DNA into human DNA. It is not enough time. It is not possible, not even close.

Quick summary, the 98 .8 % summary was deceptive from the very beginning. It's wrong.

85 % is the current best number where you can compare them. And remember, it's hard to compare, especially when you have a different number of chromosomes.

And the human chromosome fusion site has been totally debunked. Don't let anybody tell you, oh, that they think there's a fusion site.

It's genetically impossible. Finally, you have a giant wait time problem to change even a little snippet of chimp

DNA to human DNA. Not even in a billion years. It's over.

Humans and chimps cannot share a common ancestor. The bones didn't show it, which they've admitted.

And now DNA shows that the problem is even bigger than they had ever imagined.

Let me make a few comments about humans in early childhood. This is

Dr. Stuart Burgess. He's actually an engineer over in England.

He's an engineer's engineer. He's got so many patents. He designed a new bicycle for the

British cycling team. And with that new bike, they won five championships and six gold medals. He's a genius, an engineer's engineer.

Worked on spacecraft design for the European Space Agency. And he's a creationist.

He believes the Bible. He wrote a couple of books. This one's about design and origin of man.

And one of the things he points out and this is, of course, directed by our DNA. The human brain grows exceptionally fast.

It doubles in size in the first year after we're born. And here there's a little graph from medical experts.

At birth, if you use a common number at birth of the human and chimp brain, here's the conception to human at birth, the chimpanzee at birth, only a little bit smaller.

But then it never grows much in chimps. But the human brain doubles in size in the first year and continues to grow along with the rest of the body.

But the brain grows the most. In fact, 14 million neurons are added per hour.

And just 90 days after birth, the human brain is already significantly bigger and more complex.

For every new cell, every new neuron, there are a thousand new connections. And this is being directed by our

DNA. That's why those who have looked at the differences of what we think are the sections that code for the brain in human

DNA versus chimp DNA, the human section for this is immensely more complex and bigger.

And of course, that's what we see. By the end of childhood, the human brain has about a hundred thousand billion connections, 100 quadrillion.

Complexity, complexity, all brains are complex, obviously, every creature, but nothing like the human brain.

And one thing, human children have an astounding ability to learn at a fast rate. From age two on, children can learn over 10 ,000 new words a year, especially in homes where two languages are spoken.

Apes and monkeys have virtually no vocabulary whatsoever. Yeah, okay, they can grunt and express happiness or anger or something, but that's it.

They don't communicate in a language. They can express emotions, very rough emotions, very roughly.

That's it. But human children are learning new words. Humans can speak at a fast rate for long periods.

During this time, it's possible to convey vast amounts of information, ideas, and knowledge.

And that's just a sample. No animal can do this. No animal has written a symphony or invented even a compass, let alone your smartphone.

Dr. Burgess goes on, the most important use of language is to enable people to find

God and to relate to him. God has revealed himself to mankind through the

Bible. That is his written word. Yes, language is important and only humans are capable of complex language.

The ability to speak and write shows that humans are spiritual beings with a design to communicate thoughts and emotions.

He goes on, language and speech enable humans to enjoy relationships with other people, communicating abstract thoughts and feelings like, why am

I here? Does God exist? What's the evidence? Childhood is a perfect solution for enabling people to develop human abilities.

The length of a childhood means that a person can acquire a vast amount of knowledge and skills.

Strong family bond skills also are to be made during childhood. Childhood is a wonderful opportunity for a person to develop as a spiritual being.

That's why the emphasis throughout the Bible on the family, the traditional family.

And I think this is also because of this key point. It's why so many people opposed to Christianity, opposed to our normal society, traditional society, are against the traditional family.

They are taking it apart and where they've been successful, especially in American Black communities, it's just been devastating.

What did Jesus say? When some children were brought to him, disciples tried to interfere.

Jesus said, let the children alone. Do not hinder them from coming to me. For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Yeah, that's why mom and dad, every chance we get, we need to teach our kids the truth of who we are and where we came from.

So what do secular scientists even, do they even listen to these findings? What do they say? Well, this is a recent model from the

Smithsonian out in Washington DC. And here they've got this big chart again of the various types of monkeys and apes and great apes, there's chimpanzees.

And there we are, right close to the humans. There in the corner is humans, right underneath the great apes, the apes and all of the other primates of various kinds.

And then they've got our family tree. Oh, do we have any evidence of this?

No. No fossil evidence. No DNA evidence.

We have monkeys. We have chimps. We have gorillas. And we have humans.

And that's all there's been. Variation. But what do other secular scientists say?

This can be quite shocking. Some of you may have heard this. There was an article about this. Rabbit Atheist Claims.

They said that if you want to teach creation to children, it's child abuse.

Physicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss gained wide exposure in a radio interview in Australia when he said, well, I've recently in the

United States just stated that teaching creationism is child abuse. And I think it is.

Richard Dawkins agreed with him. And so does Bill Nye, the anti -science guy.

They all agree. Oh, teaching kids about God, that you are special in his eyes and that you need to act that way.

That's child abuse? I'm sorry. Apart from actual physical abuse, which

I think they would exclude as well. Apart from physical abuse, the ultimate child abuse is to teach children that they are nothing but fancy monkeys.

That is child abuse. And we've been abusing generations of skilled children with this falsehood for generations, for hundreds of years now.

And then we wonder why they act like monkeys in the streets. To teach children that they are nothing but fancy monkeys or came from monkeys is scientifically wrong.

It's biblically wrong. And it's morally wrong. And it has horrible results.

So what are you going to trust? God's word, which changes not? Or man's word, which is always changing?

They're always having to change your story. But what we are trying to do here is just to help you along with true knowledge.

And according to 2 Corinthians 10, 5, we are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.

We do. We are meant to know God. Yes, we live. We are sinners living in a sinful world.

But we are meant to know God and Jesus Christ, who brings us back to him through the forgiveness of sin.

That's the real conclusion, folks. That's the real conclusion. But let me make a commercial.

I do have some of my talks, this Planet of the Apes. That's the talk I gave last week. I have these

DVDs available. You get normally $10 a piece. You can get all four for $35 or a thumb drive, which has

MP4 videos of all of these talks as recorded, like we are this one tonight, has an

MP4 video on this thumb drive, plus lots of bonus material. I think there are nine

PDF documents on the thumb drive at a discounted price, $30.

You get all those videos. You get more videos, some short videos, excellent material, and some notes, including some notes on human and chimp

DNA in a PDF document. That's all available. Just contact me at info at qccsa .org.

We also have available some excellent DVDs. This one is about the six days of creation with beautiful graphics and commentary by PhD scientists.

And then Contested Bones is a relatively new book by Dr. John Sanford. He and Christopher Arrupe go through all of the bones in detail, when they were found, where they're found, what they're actually finding, what else is being found.

Excellent resource if you're into this. And it does include a section on human chimp DNA near the end.

I mentioned last week, we still have three seats open for our Grand Canyon tour. You get a family friendly trip with biblical explanation of the

Grand Canyon at three points of the rim, plus a 17 mile raft trip on Saturday morning.

Get to experience thousand foot cliffs on either side. So any questions?

Thank you, Helmut. That was really great. I am going to, I had a few questions, but I think we're going to stop the recording.