Evidence for a relationship between apes and humans

Young earth creationists sometimes say that it is impossible for humans and the great apes to be descended from a common ancestor, because their genes are more different than you would expect, if that were the case.

I recently read a post, by R. Joel Duff, that has been up for a few years, but is still relevant and interesting. It examines the evidence on the point above, based on mitochondrial DNA. All animals have mitochondria, which are necessary for a cell to obtain energy from food molecules. Mitochondria have only a dozen or so genes, so it is much easier to get a DNA sequence from, say, fox mitochondrial DNA, than from the entire fox genome. Also, mitochondria are passed from one generation to another in the egg cell, with no recombination with male-derived DNA, so there is little change from generation to generation,

Duff examined available data on mitochondrial differences between various animals, including humans. His findings included the following:

Humans vs. Chimpanzees: out of 16569/16569 base pairs, 91.2% were the same.
Red Fox vs. Wolf: out of 13785 fox/16054 wolf base pairs, 86% were the same.
Domestic cat vs. leopard: out of 14352 cat/16206 leopard base pairs, 89% were the same.

For further discussion, more comparisons, and indications of methods, see Duff's post.

Young-earth creationists mostly claim that, following the Ark's landing, less than 5,000 years ago, less than 200 kinds (baramins) of animals were released, and these animals rapidly evolved so as to produce several, perhaps even many, species each. These animals, they say, mostly did not look like the animals of today, or the animals shown in story books about creation, or the Ark. For example, there were a pair, or perhaps seven pairs, of ancestors of all dog/wolf/fox-like animals, which evolved into coyotes, wolves, foxes, wild dogs, dingoes, and more types of present animals, and there were ancestors of all catlike organisms, which evolved into lions, tigers, panthers, ocelots, and more creatures. The "more" is said, by most Young-earth creationists, to include extinct creatures, such as saber-tooth tigers. Answers in Genesis, the most prominent Young-earth creationist organization, says this: "In addition to all the big cats that filled the earth after the Flood and then went extinct (such as the saber-toothed cat), forty species of cats survive."

There is, so far as I know, no scientific, or historical, evidence to support such claims, and what evidence exists from ancient art also does not support them. As far as we can tell, lions, and most other animals, have changed little over the past several thousands of years.

Duff's post is one of many that point out scientific evidence against the current Young-earth creationist paradigm.
 
Duff's conclusion is that, although mitochondrial DNA does not tell the whole story, comparing mitochondrial DNA indicates that the claim, that humans and the great apes are too different to be in the same kind/baramin, does not hold up. The proposed canine and feline kinds/baramins have more differences among them than humans and chimpanzees do between them. Duff also, wisely, says this: "I make no claim that the data I present are convincing evidence of common ancestry or of the lack of common ancestry."

Thanks for reading. Read Duff's post -- in fact, if you can, subscribe to his blog.