It’s time to take another look at the outdated and repeatedly overstated claim that humans and chimpanzees are “99 percent similar.”

Evolutionists often lean on Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous line, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” They often insist that to doubt evolution is to reject the entire structure of modern science—mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and anything else they can list. But slogans aren’t evidence. These are talking points, repeated so often that many assume they must be true. However, when we examine the evidence, their claims are found to be circular, based upon their belief in evolution. And nowhere is this more evident than in the claim of near-identical human–chimp DNA.

DNA similarity can be measured in many ways: gene counts, protein sequences, chromosomal banding, hybridization studies, whole-genome sequencing, and analysis of insertions and deletions. The earliest studies relied on Reassociation Kinetics, a method now recognized as crude and unreliable. But it was these early, limited studies that produced the famous 98.5% figure—a number evolutionists were aiming for.

How did they get there? By tossing out anything that didn’t match. Insertions were deleted. Non-similar regions were ignored. Whole stretches of DNA with major differences were removed from analysis. Even the chromosomes chosen for comparison were selected because they were already known to be the most similar.

None of this is a secret… it’s openly admitted in the scientific literature. Researchers deliberately cherry-picked the slices of DNA that supported the conclusion they wanted. The “99% similarity” claim wasn’t a discovery; it was produced.

The claim of 98-99 percent similarity is vital to evolutionary theory. If humans and chimps were less similar, then the evolutionary timeline collapses. Six-and-a-half million years simply isn’t enough time for the massive genetic overhaul required to transform an ape-like ancestor into a modern human. That window represents roughly 240,000–300,000 generations.

But the latest research- including analyses that account for the regions previously ignored-shows similarity closer to 85%, not 98–99%. That 15% difference translates to hundreds of millions of DNA “letters.” In evolutionary terms, that’s enormous. And it’s devastating for the story that humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor. Humans are very different, and this is a problem for anyone holding evolutionary views.

Consider this dilemma: Richard Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment has now passed 75,000 generations- a staggering amount of time in biological terms. But after all those generations, E. coli remain E. coli. They haven’t evolved into a new organism. They haven’t transformed into anything else. They remain the same kind of creature—just with minor variations.

Yet evolutionists insist that humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, australopithecines, and countless other primates all diverged from a common ancestor within just 240,000–300,000 generations in 6.5 million years. In other words, bacteria stay bacteria after 75,000 generations of observed experimentation… but apes supposedly turned into humans and dozens of other species in about three times that number—without observation, without experimentation, and without reproducible results. This discrepancy alone should give any honest evolutionist reason to doubt evolution- or outright reject it.

Evolutionists often praise their theory for its predictive power. But when we test those predictions, we repeatedly find them wanting. For example, Richard Dawkins once confidently asserted, “Chimpanzees and we share more than 99 percent of our genes.” And in the 1960s and 70s, researchers predicted 95–99% similarity. All of them were wrong.

Creationists, meanwhile, predicted that the similarity would be much lower—and they were right. In 2012, creation scientists Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins examined published data, including material from the 2005 chimp genome report. Their conclusion? Human–chimp similarity could not exceed 87%, and was likely as low as 81%. Their prediction aligns strikingly well with modern analyses.

Even the 85% figure needs perspective. Similarity does not automatically imply common ancestry. Humans are genetically 50% similar to bananas. No evolutionist argues we descended from banana trees. Cows are 80% similar to humans, but zebrafish are at 82%! And pigs—amazingly—are around 98% similar at the gene level, higher than any primate.

If similarity alone proved ancestry, we would have to conclude that the pig is our closest relative, which no evolutionist believes.

The better explanation is simpler: common design. Engineers reuse successful components in different machines. Architects reuse structural principles in different buildings. Why would we expect God to work differently? Creatures that share similar features- eyes, limbs, circulatory systems- naturally share similar genetic instructions. That is not evidence of descent but of design.

The Bible offers an explanation that fits both Scripture and scientific observation. God created distinct kinds of animals from the beginning, each reproducing according to its kind. Humans share certain biological traits with animals because we share a common Designer. But we do not share ancestry with them, nor did we emerge from an ape-like creature.

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
and the man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7)

We are not the byproduct of unguided mutations or blind evolutionary processes. We are the handiwork of God, made in His image, distinct from the animals, purposed from the beginning.

And no amount of cherry-picked DNA can rewrite that truth.