Are We Really 98% Chimp?

[Ogner]

You’ve probably heard the claim: humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA, meaning we’re just 2% apart. It sounds neat, scientific, and convincing—until you dig into what it really means. The truth is, this 2% figure is more absurd than it seems. Let’s break it down with a simple analogy: imagine a Chinese scholar trying to decode two English books, armed only with the alphabet.

A Chinese Scholar and Two Books
Picture this: a Chinese scholar who knows the English alphabet (A to Z) but doesn’t understand the language. He picks up "Macbeth" by Shakespeare, a massive book with millions of letters. He meticulously copies every letter into a new notebook—every "A," "T," "H," "E," everything. He doesn’t know what the words mean, but he recognizes it’s written in English. After flipping through, he understands just 2% of the book—say, the cover and title page: "Macbeth, Shakespeare". The rest—murders, witches, fate—is a mystery. He says, "I’ve decoded it!" because he’s got all the letters down.
Next, he grabs Shakespeare’s "Hamlet." Same deal: he copies every letter into another notebook, sees it’s in English, and grasps 2%—the cover again: "Hamlet, Shakespeare." The plot—ghosts, revenge, madness—flies over his head. He’s got the alphabet and the letters, but the meaning? Barely a sliver.

Comparing the Covers
Now, he compares his two notebooks. He notices the covers—"Macbeth, Shakespeare" and "Hamlet, Shakespeare"—share a lot: both in English, both have "author William Shakespeare," "publisher Lord God," "first edition". He calculates: "Hey, these covers are 98% alike!" So, he concludes, "The difference between 'Macbeth' and 'Hamlet' is just 2%—they’re practically the same book!"
Sounds ridiculous, right? Two epic stories, one about a Scottish king and the other a Danish prince, reduced to "2% apart" because their covers look similar. That’s exactly what’s happening with the DNA comparison between humans and chimps.

DNA: Letters Without Meaning
DNA is like those books—3.2 billion "letters" (A, T, C, G) long. Scientists have copied it all out, letter by letter, for both humans and chimps. They understand about 2% of it—the genes, the "cover" that codes for proteins like eyes or muscles. The other 98%? That’s the "non-coding" DNA, once called "junk," now known as "switches" that control how the genes work—brain size, speech, everything that makes us human. But here’s the kicker: they don’t fully understand what those 98% do. It’s like our scholar copying "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" but not getting the stories.
When they say "2% difference," they’re comparing the bits they understand—genes and some "similar" non-coding parts. They line up the covers and say, "Look, 98% match!" But the real difference, including those mysterious 98%, could be much bigger—some, like James Tour in his 2025 talk "Evolution vs. Evidence," argue it’s 13–19% when you count insertions, deletions, and rearrangements. That’s not a tweak; it’s a rewrite.

The Absurdity of It All
Imagine our scholar claiming he’s "decoded" both books because he knows the alphabet and the covers. Then he says, "They’re 98% the same!"—ignoring that one’s about a power-hungry thane and the other’s a brooding prince. That’s the absurdity of the 2% DNA claim. Scientists know the "alphabet" (A, T, C, G) and 2% of the "plot" (genes), but the 98% "switches" that make humans and chimps so different? Mostly a blank page. Saying "2% difference" based on that is like judging two books by their covers and calling it science.

What It Really Means
This 2% isn’t a measure of how close we are to chimps—it’s a cherry-picked stat from the parts scientists can read. The real gap, hidden in that 98% they don’t grasp, could be a chasm—13%, 19%, maybe more. It’s not just letters; it’s meaning. Our scholar wouldn’t dare say "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" are nearly identical based on covers alone. Yet, that’s what the 2% DNA claim does—flattens humans and chimps into a fake similarity, ignoring the vast, unread story within.
So, next time you hear "we’re 98% chimp," picture that Chinese scholar with his notebooks. He’s got the letters, but the books? He hasn’t got a clue. Neither do we about DNA—not yet.

 

Edited March 25 by Ogner

[The Barbarian]

The key is, humans and chimpanzees share more genes than either shares with any other ape.    The 98% number is in raw DNA, but the actual genetic similarity is less than that, but more than 92%.

6 hours ago, Ogner said:

So, next time you hear "we’re 98% chimp," picture that Chinese scholar with his notebooks. He’s got the letters, but the books? He hasn’t got a clue. Neither do we about DNA—not yet.

No, that's nonsense.  The genomes of both humans and chimps have been fully sequenced.  

https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

[Ogner]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The key is, humans and chimpanzees share more genes than either shares with any other ape.    The 98% number is in raw DNA, but the actual genetic similarity is less than that, but more than 92%.

No, that's nonsense.  The genomes of both humans and chimps have been fully sequenced.  

https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

You say my take on DNA is nonsense because the genomes of both humans and chimps have been fully sequenced. Let’s break it down. Yes, projects like the Human Genome Project (completed in 2003) and the Chimpanzee Genome Project (draft published in 2005) have indeed mapped out the full sequences—3.2 billion "letters" for humans and chimps. But "sequenced" doesn’t mean "understood." Scientists know all the letters (A, T, C, G), but they only understand about 2%—the genes that code for proteins. The other 98%—non-coding DNA, the "switches"—is still largely a mystery in terms of what it does.
Your point stands that the sequences are recorded. But when they claim "98% similarity" or "2% difference," that’s based on comparing just the parts they can easily align. If you count everything—substitutions, insertions, rearrangements—the difference jumps to 13–19% Knowing the letters isn’t the same as knowing the book. Sequencing is copying the text, not decoding its meaning. So, nonsense? No, just a deeper look beyond "it’s all figured out."
 

The Misunderstood Genome" (The Scientist, 2014)
Link: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-misunderstood-genome-36597  

Description: An article by John Parrington in The Scientist. It explains that completing the Human Genome Project in 2003 gave us "raw data"—the sequence of all 3 billion base pairs—but it’s just the start. Understanding the functions, especially of the 98% non-coding DNA, remains a "huge task." He compares sequencing to "reading a book in an unknown language"—the letters are there, but the meaning isn’t. Right up your "absurd" alley.  

 "Beyond the Genome: The True Complexity Lies in Understanding Function" (Nature Reviews Genetics, 2012)
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg3330  

Description: A review article in Nature Reviews Genetics tied to the ENCODE project. The authors stress that sequencing is just a "map," not a "manual." They note that the 98% non-coding DNA (regulatory elements) has functions, but their specific roles are a "black box." It dives into the confusion: the public thinks "decoded the genome" means "we get it all," but that’s far from true.  

"Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome" (Nessa Carey, 2015)
Link: https://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/978023117/9780231170840.HTM (synopsis and excerpts available online)  

Description: A book by Nessa Carey for a general audience. She explains that sequencing gave us the "text" of DNA, but the 98%—the "dark matter" of non-coding regions—isn’t just "junk," it’s regulatory. "We know the letters, but not what they mean," she writes. It shows how the mix-up between "recording" and "understanding" misleads everyone.  

"The Human Genome at 20: What We Still Don’t Know" (Scientific American, 2021)
Ссылка: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-genome-at-20-what-we-still-dont-know/  

Описание: Статья к 20-летию Human Genome Project. Автор поясняет, что секвенирование было "техническим триумфом", но понимание генома — "работа на десятилетия вперёд". Особенно подчёркивается, что некодирующая ДНК (98%) — это "огромная неизвестность", несмотря на её роль в регуляции. Прямо говорится: публика переоценивает "расшифровку", путая её с полным знанием.

"The Genome Is Not a Book: Why Sequencing Isn’t Understanding" (Aeon, 2017)
Ссылка: https://aeon.co/essays/the-genome-is-not-a-book-we-can-read-yet  

Описание: Эссе философа науки Джона Дюпре в Aeon. Он прямо бьёт в точку: секвенирование — это "механическая запись", а не "чтение с пониманием". ДНК сравнивается с текстом, где буквы известны, но "язык" — нет. Отличный разбор путаницы между "иметь данные" и "знать, что они значат", с акцентом на 98% некодирующей ДНК.

[Deborah_]

The Chinese scholar analogy is inappropriate. The genome isn't random letters, and many genes are fully sequenced and well studied. 

Take haemoglobin, for example - a fundamental protein found in all vertebrates with only minor differences between one species and another. Multiply that several thousand times for all the other proteins that govern basic life processes common to all species, (such as digestion, regulation of blood sugar level, oxygen transport, kidney function, etc, etc)

It's not surprising that we have a lot of DNA in common with other apes - in fact, it's to be expected, given that our physical bodies work in pretty much the same way. But it's wrong to say that we're "98% chimp" - more accurate to say that both humans and chimps are 100% mammals, but we didn't need genetics to tell us that!

NB A difference doesn't have to be large in order to be significant.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Ogner said:

You say my take on DNA is nonsense because the genomes of both humans and chimps have been fully sequenced. Let’s break it down. Yes, projects like the Human Genome Project (completed in 2003) and the Chimpanzee Genome Project (draft published in 2005) have indeed mapped out the full sequences—3.2 billion "letters" for humans and chimps. But "sequenced" doesn’t mean "understood." Scientists know all the letters (A, T, C, G), but they only understand about 2%—the genes that code for proteins.

 

Yes, the actual coding genes are virtually identical.   But that's just the start.   Both humans and chimps have a gene for vitamin C.  But it's broken, and no longer works.   And it's broken in the same way in humans and chimps.   In fact, it's broken in the same way in all Old World haplorhini primates.

Because such evidence is found in the genomes of humans and other apes, we are always finding interesting history therein:
Researchers found that herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infected hominids before their evolutionary split from chimpanzees 6 million years ago, whereas herpes simplex 2 (HSV-2) was transferred from ancient chimpanzees to human ancestors such as Homo erectus about 1.6 million years ago, long before the rise of early modern humans about 200,000 years ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/human-ancestors-got-herpes-chimps-n132336

Non-coding DNA (sometimes called "junk DNA" by creationists) is actually a very mixed bag.   Some of it, like the GULO gene, is truly junk.  Other non-coding DNA has regulatory functions; when I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, people were already realizing some of that.    And recently, it's become clear that non-coding DNA is a major source of new genes.    Would you like me to show you that?

Still a lot to learn.  But like chromosome structure, variations in common genes and in non-coding DNA, all confirm our evolutionary history.   Would you like to see some more examples?

 

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

Take haemoglobin, for example - a fundamental protein found in all vertebrates with only minor differences between one species and another. Multiply that several thousand times for all the other proteins that govern basic life processes common to all species, (such as digestion, regulation of blood sugar level, oxygen transport, kidney function, etc, etc)

Yes.   Some years ago, a small amount of the heme fraction of hemoglobin was found in a T. rex fossil.   It provided one more confirmation that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

[Ogner]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

The Chinese scholar analogy is inappropriate. The genome isn't random letters, and many genes are fully sequenced and well studied. 

Take haemoglobin, for example - a fundamental protein found in all vertebrates with only minor differences between one species and another. Multiply that several thousand times for all the other proteins that govern basic life processes common to all species, (such as digestion, regulation of blood sugar level, oxygen transport, kidney function, etc, etc)

It's not surprising that we have a lot of DNA in common with other apes - in fact, it's to be expected, given that our physical bodies work in pretty much the same way. But it's wrong to say that we're "98% chimp" - more accurate to say that both humans and chimps are 100% mammals, but we didn't need genetics to tell us that!

NB A difference doesn't have to be large in order to be significant.

Sequencing genes doesn’t mean we understand them. The analogy illustrates this perfectly. Think of it like this:

Sequencing genes = Sequencing text.

It’s like a Chinese scholar realizing that what’s in front of him isn’t just a random jumble of letters—they’re arranged in a precise order, forming an actual book, not meaningless scribbles. That realization—that there’s a structured text rather than chaos—is what sequencing means.

But here’s the catch: the scholar still doesn’t grasp the meaning of the book. At best, he understands  2% of it—essentially just the title on the cover.

The fact that humans and apes are both mammals means nothing. Here’s a list of other mammals:

Blue whale, Orca, African elephant, Platypus, Armadillo, Pangolin, Narwhal

What does that prove? Being in the same biological class tells us nothing about how or why we’re fundamentally different. A whale shares mammalian traits with us too—does that make us aquatic giants?

Edited March 26 by Ogner

[Ogner]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes, the actual coding genes are virtually identical. But that's just the start. Both humans and chimps have a gene for vitamin C. But it's broken, and no longer works. And it's broken in the same way in humans and chimps. In fact, it's broken in the same way in all Old World haplorhini primates.

Because such evidence is found in the genomes of humans and other apes, we are always finding interesting history therein:
Researchers found that herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infected hominids before their evolutionary split from chimpanzees 6 million years ago, whereas herpes simplex 2 (HSV-2) was transferred from ancient chimpanzees to human ancestors such as Homo erectus about 1.6 million years ago, long before the rise of early modern humans about 200,000 years ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/human-ancestors-got-herpes-chimps-n132336

Non-coding DNA (sometimes called "junk DNA" by creationists) is actually a very mixed bag. Some of it, like the GULO gene, is truly junk. Other non-coding DNA has regulatory functions; when I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, people were already realizing some of that. And recently, it's become clear that non-coding DNA is a major source of new genes. Would you like me to show you that?

Still a lot to learn. But like chromosome structure, variations in common genes and in non-coding DNA, all confirm our evolutionary history. Would you like to see some more examples?

 

Yes. We’ve only just begun to realize that DNA isn’t merely a string of genetic letters—it’s an enormous, sophisticated book, written in a language we’re still deciphering. While we can now read the alphabet, we have almost no understanding of its plot, characters, or deeper meaning.
"We’ve mapped the genome’s ‘syntax’ (base pairs), but its ‘semantics’ (regulatory logic) and ‘narrative’ (emergent biological functions) remain largely opaque."

To claim humans are ‘98% chimpanzee’ based solely on letter-by-letter comparisons is like saying two novels are identical because they share the same number of pages—while ignoring that one is War and Peace and the other is a phone book. It’s not just an oversimplification; it’s a fundamental distortion of reality."
 

[Retrobyter]

12 hours ago, Ogner said:

You say my take on DNA is nonsense because the genomes of both humans and chimps have been fully sequenced. Let’s break it down. Yes, projects like the Human Genome Project (completed in 2003) and the Chimpanzee Genome Project (draft published in 2005) have indeed mapped out the full sequences—3.2 billion "letters" for humans and chimps. But "sequenced" doesn’t mean "understood." Scientists know all the letters (A, T, C, G), but they only understand about 2%—the genes that code for proteins. The other 98%—non-coding DNA, the "switches"—is still largely a mystery in terms of what it does.
Your point stands that the sequences are recorded. But when they claim "98% similarity" or "2% difference," that’s based on comparing just the parts they can easily align. If you count everything—substitutions, insertions, rearrangements—the difference jumps to 13–19% Knowing the letters isn’t the same as knowing the book. Sequencing is copying the text, not decoding its meaning. So, nonsense? No, just a deeper look beyond "it’s all figured out."
 

The Misunderstood Genome" (The Scientist, 2014)
Link: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-misunderstood-genome-36597  

Description: An article by John Parrington in The Scientist. It explains that completing the Human Genome Project in 2003 gave us "raw data"—the sequence of all 3 billion base pairs—but it’s just the start. Understanding the functions, especially of the 98% non-coding DNA, remains a "huge task." He compares sequencing to "reading a book in an unknown language"—the letters are there, but the meaning isn’t. Right up your "absurd" alley.  

 "Beyond the Genome: The True Complexity Lies in Understanding Function" (Nature Reviews Genetics, 2012)
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg3330  

Description: A review article in Nature Reviews Genetics tied to the ENCODE project. The authors stress that sequencing is just a "map," not a "manual." They note that the 98% non-coding DNA (regulatory elements) has functions, but their specific roles are a "black box." It dives into the confusion: the public thinks "decoded the genome" means "we get it all," but that’s far from true.  

"Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome" (Nessa Carey, 2015)
Link: https://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/978023117/9780231170840.HTM (synopsis and excerpts available online)  

Description: A book by Nessa Carey for a general audience. She explains that sequencing gave us the "text" of DNA, but the 98%—the "dark matter" of non-coding regions—isn’t just "junk," it’s regulatory. "We know the letters, but not what they mean," she writes. It shows how the mix-up between "recording" and "understanding" misleads everyone.  

"The Human Genome at 20: What We Still Don’t Know" (Scientific American, 2021)
Ссылка: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-genome-at-20-what-we-still-dont-know/  

Описание: Статья к 20-летию Human Genome Project. Автор поясняет, что секвенирование было "техническим триумфом", но понимание генома — "работа на десятилетия вперёд". Особенно подчёркивается, что некодирующая ДНК (98%) — это "огромная неизвестность", несмотря на её роль в регуляции. Прямо говорится: публика переоценивает "расшифровку", путая её с полным знанием.

"The Genome Is Not a Book: Why Sequencing Isn’t Understanding" (Aeon, 2017)
Ссылка: https://aeon.co/essays/the-genome-is-not-a-book-we-can-read-yet  

Описание: Эссе философа науки Джона Дюпре в Aeon. Он прямо бьёт в точку: секвенирование — это "механическая запись", а не "чтение с пониманием". ДНК сравнивается с текстом, где буквы известны, но "язык" — нет. Отличный разбор путаницы между "иметь данные" и "знать, что они значат", с акцентом на 98% некодирующей ДНК.

Shalom, @Ogner.

We also need to understand that DNA is not just a chain, but it is also THREE-DIMENSIONAL, and they're in the process of discovering that it is even FOURTH-DIMENSIONAL.  It wraps upon itself so that portions of the double-helix are overlapped with other portions to perform certain tasks. And, that overlap CHANGES with the age of the individual! In this way, DNA is NOT static, but DYNAMIC as it ages.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

Yes. We’ve only just begun to realize that DNA isn’t merely a string of genetic letters—it’s an enormous, sophisticated book, written in a language we’re still deciphering.
 

So far, everything we've learned about it, further confirms our common ancestry.

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

While we can now read the alphabet, we have almost no understanding of its plot, characters, or deeper meaning.
"We’ve mapped the genome’s ‘syntax’ (base pairs), but its ‘semantics’ (regulatory logic) and ‘narrative’ (emergent biological functions) remain largely opaque."

Well, you probably haven't read much in the genetics literature...

Emergent Properties of Gene Regulatory Networks: Models and Data

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-6803-1_3

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

To claim humans are ‘98% chimpanzee’ based solely on letter-by-letter comparisons is like saying two novels are identical because they share the same number of pages

If you think that's what genetics tells us about evolution, I can tell that you know almost nothing about genetics.    Read some of the links I left you, and learn a little about it.    Your assumptions about genomes are a "fundamental distortion of reality."