Back to previous page

Monkey Business
Against Supposed Similarities
By Jordan P. Niednagel
© - 2/04

It's what every Darwinist loves to profess. Turn on the television, read the magazines, and you will be bombarded with "scientific information" regarding the similarities between apes (i.e. monkeys, baboons, etc.) and human beings. Many scientists have, in fact, devoted decades of their lives to studying the behavior of these animals, all with the idea that, yes, these are indeed grandma and grandpa. The notable stories of Jane Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and gorillas fascinate the public, sparking our minds to believe that the thoughts, behaviors, and communications of these animals are not all that far from our own. Genetic developments in the scientific community have helped reinforce these ideas, or so it seems. What is, however, the truth of the matter? Are we really so similar to our furry friends?

"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1]

Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?

And as a writer for the Smithsonian concedes: "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species." [2]

Simply stated, if we were to take this idea of similarities to determine which animal is most like us, we would come up with dire results. Take, for instance, our number of chromosomes (46). Two of our closest ancestors would be the tobacco plant (48) and the bat (44). Furthermore, because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. Therefore, this would reveal that we started from penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and slowly evolved into fruit flies (8), and after many more millions of years we became tomatoes (12), and so on, until we reached the human stage of 46 chromosomes. Millions of years from now, if we're fortunate, we may become the ultimate life form, a fern, with a total of 480 chromosomes.

Or, again, we could examine the human eye. Anatomically, it is most similar to that of an octopus'. Of course, the theory that the human eye evolved was directly commented by Charles Darwin himself when he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [3]

Another argument in relation to man/monkey similarity has to do with language. A chimpanzee named Washoe and a bonobo named Kanzi "have become famous for their ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways." [4] In contrast, however, Robert Seyfarth, one of the most dedicated primate researchers in the world, says, "You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it doesn't tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild." And lastly, "even in the laboratory, no animal has attained anything like true language." [4]

Regarding Seyfarth, he and his wife, who have performed many notable experiments with vervet monkeys and baboons, came to the conclusion after their latest work that the limitations on intelligence and communication in monkeys are severe.[4] For example, foraging baboons from a troop who have separated themselves so that they're on opposite sides of a forest are known to make barking calls, which have long been thought to be calls of contact to one another. Experiments have revealed, however, that the monkeys are only mourning because they're lost.

"...monkeys don't actually recognize that other monkeys have minds," say Seyfarth and his wife.[4] Humans can convey their thoughts and emotions to one another, so that one can sympathize with another who is hurting. Monkeys cannot. While chimps can grieve and certainly show emotions, they do not appear to sympathize with other chimps who are grieved.


Before believing what mainstream media tells you, look into the matter yourself. You are your own scientist, and can, with proper study, come to scientific truths firsthand. Don't take their word for something, and don't take our word for something. Truth is truth, fact is fact, and patiently lies waiting, like a fossil, to be discovered.


"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist
'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variablitity is considered, the answer appears to be no."

Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D.
Professor of Anthropology, Penn State University
'Population genetics and human origins'. Scientific American, vol 226(1), January 1972, p. 94.

"As I have implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitmate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all."

Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A., M.D., D.Sc.
Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub.Co., New York, 1970, p.64.



1. Jones, S., interviewed at the Australian Museum on The Science Show, broadcast on ABC radio, 12 January 2002.
2. Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian, pp. 102-104, October 2001.
3. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.
4. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S., Furry little humans?, Creation, pp. 10-12, June-August 2002.

Available online at