Science Bombshell: New Research Overturns Claim that Humans and Chimps Differ by Only 1 Percent of DNA - Humans found to be only 86% monke

Bombshell: New Research Overturns Claim that Humans and Chimps Differ by Only 1 Percent of DNA (L | A)​

By Casey Luskin on May 20, 2025

How many times have you heard it said that the human and chimpanzee genomes are so similar that they are only “1 percent different” at the level of their DNA? This shows, we were told, not only that humans and chimps share common ancestry, but that humans aren’t all that special, which is a common talking point in science journalism and other public discussions. After all, we’re just slightly modified chimps! This “fact” has been discussed so much that it has become what the late biologist Jonathan Wells famously called an “icon of evolution.”

But now, new data reported in a recently published Nature paper by Yoo et al. (A) has overturned this previous claim. The new findings reveal that human DNA is far more different from chimp DNA than previously thought.

That should be major news in the science world, yet those involved don’t seem interested in highlighting their discovery. More on that later.

Many times over the years, I’ve discussed how this 1 percent claim about humans and chimps is likely wrong. It is also misleading. No matter how similar humans might be to chimps at the genetic level, anyone who has been to the zoo knows already that chimps and humans are vastly different. After all, we’re the ones writing scientific papers about them—not the other way around. So common sense alone dictates that there is something misleading about that number and how it is used. But the new data show that the previous statistic isn’t just misleading. It’s flat-out false.

As I will elaborate in a subsequent article, this team of researchers has published “complete” sequences of ape genomes that were created ‘from scratch’ rather than using the human genome as a template. As a result, for the first time we can attempt a much more accurate assessment of the true degree of difference between the human and chimp genomes.
The results are groundbreaking:

• At least 12.5 percent and possibly up to 13.3 percent of the chimp and human genomes represent a “gap difference” between the two genomes. That means there’s a “gap” in one genome compared to the other, often where they are so different, they cannot even be aligned.
• There are also significant alignable sections of the two genomes that show “short nucleotide variations” which differ by only about 1.5 percent. We can add this difference to the “gap difference,” and calculate a 14 percent to 14.9 percent total difference between human and chimp genomes. This means that the actual difference between human and chimp DNA is 14 times greater than the often-quoted 1 percent statistic.

It’s true that large portions of the human genome are still only about 1.5 percent genetically different from the chimp genome. We’ll explore what that means in a subsequent post. But the new data reveal just how little this one fact tells us about the overall picture. We now know that major portions of the two genomes — 12.5 percent to 13.3 percent of the human genome, in fact — are so different that arguably the sections are unalignable and/or not directly present in one genome or the other.

Burying the Lede​

One very peculiar thing about the research just published is that nowhere in the technical paper is this bombshell discovery clearly reported, and nowhere is it stated clearly that human and chimp DNA is some ~14 percent different. Even an explainer article in Nature — which usually do a great job of translating technical findings for the average scientist — does not mention this huge finding. You have to dig deep into the Supplementary Data to find it, and even there it is opaquely stated in technical jargon.

This data has huge implications for the long-quoted statistic that we are only 1 percent genetically different from chimps, and many people are interested in this question for its implications regarding evolution, origins, and the exceptional status of human beings. Yet the papers almost seemed like they want to obscure the numbers, making them hard to find for the reader, whether a scientist or layman.

How hard would it have been for the original Nature paper or — even better — the explainer article to say that this new data shows that the human and chimp genomes are more like 14 percent to 15 percent different rather than 1 percent?

And yet for some very strange reason they did not do that. In journalism, this is called “burying the lede” — putting the main point of your reporting, the most notable fact, under a heap of less important verbiage. Sometimes this happens due to incompetence. Other times, it is deliberate.

Remembering the Icon​

As Jonathan Wells taught us, “icons of evolution” are arguments for evolution that get recycled over and over again — yet are not true. How do we know the 1 percent statistic is such an icon? Science popularizer Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” provided a great example when he wrote in his 2014 book Undeniable:

As our understanding of DNA has increased, we have come to understand that we share around 98.8 percent of our gene sequence with chimpanzees. This is striking evidence for chimps and chumps to have a common ancestor.

p. 248

The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s website (A) likewise states:

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another — and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.

Similar statements are found in the Smithsonian itself — the nation’s museum! — visited by nearly 4 million people yearly. I took this photo in 2023 when I visited:

A caption below declares that: “DNA evidence … confirms … that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor…”

David Klinghoffer provides a nice rundown (A) of other sources that have cited this statistic:

• “We share more than 98 percent of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.” (Nature)
• “[A]bout 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees.” (Kevin Williamson, National Review)
• “Most studies indicate that when genomic regions are compared between chimpanzees and humans, they share about 98.5 percent sequence identity.” (Scientific American)
• “Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA.” (American Museum of Natural History)
• “[H]umans share about 99 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives.” (Science)
• “Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds.” (National Geographic News)

This “1 percent human-chimp genetic difference” statistic has been widely promoted and is widely believed. It’s undeniably an icon of evolution. But Dr. Wells also noted that these icons are like “zombies” — they don’t die easily. Instead, they keep being repeated, long after they’ve been refuted.

If that’s true, then don’t expect the 1 percent statistic to go away anytime soon. In fact, as I mentioned, the new Nature paper makes it very difficult to dig up the figures I’ve quoted here, so I suspect we’ll continue to see zombie numbers quoted, despite what the newly published data shows. I’ll explain all of that in more detail in a subsequent article. For the moment, suffice to say that the old 1 percent difference statistic is the latest icon of evolution to fall. May it rest in peace.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

An obvious lie turn out to be an obvious lie.

 

[Nice Stick]

Here's what jewgle "AI" says when asked "how much dna do great apes share with humans"

 

[Absolutego]

An obvious lie turn out to be an obvious lie.

Sounds more like genomic study has gotten detailed enough (in part thanks to advances in computing capability) that they can identify genomes on a more granular level than before and can see that even genomes in common have a ton of variation in the details of their execution, meaning while we have overwhelmingly similar base genomic data, there's a lot more difference in aggregate than previously thought.

Lies have to be intentional. People complaining about this revelation and insisting it's nawt troo will be lying. But the statements before weren't a lie so much as an imperfect understanding of the data.
That's where the perfidy will come. The article was right on the money that this is a zombie fact that will shamble along despite new evidence.

 

[Fascist Frederick]

What the article doesn't tell you: It's only 99% for niggers.

 

[Strangolapreti]

They used nigger dna this time.

 

[oldTireWater]

I'm starting to think it's the Neanderthal DNA that makes a true human.

 

[Room Temp Shrimp]

They say humans and pigs are remarkably similar DNA as well, so much so that ive heard we can use pigs for things like insulin production.

Makes speculative evolution works like All Tomorrows a bit more terrifying.

 

[Tsukasa Kadoya]

Aboriginals are 99.9% identical

 

[Jobama]

I don’t care they’re still my bros.

 

[Beelzebub's Lawyer]

This is the good thing about science, we update it based on new evidence.
I just hope that religious people won't start using this as proof of their deities without even reading the damn thing.

 

[funwithshemales69]

Huh, 15% difference. I want to know whether they used white people or black people cause Im sure it would be much lower for black people.

 

[Strix454]

This 98 percent claim was first made in the journal science in 1975. The studies that made the claim were unscientific nonsense where the actual DNA was not even really looked at. But because of the politics of science, the results got carved in stone and became the benchmark that every subsequent study had to reproduce.

Were they lying? Impossible to know.

BUT:

Did they misrepresent data and draw conclusions that no professional researcher should have been drawing?

Did they do science by "media headlines" to get attention for themselves and their work?

Did the editors and reviewers at Science publish the study balancing its flaws against its sensationalistic media-attention grabbing potental?

Did the scientists involved allow their desired conclusion to drive the study?

Yes.


The counter-argument will always be "But we are scientists. We are allowed to make shit up all the time and we have to do things like this to get grant money. And all scientists know that the 98% number is true because Darwin. There is nothing wrong with doing faith-based science."

 

[Vesperus]

And yet for some very strange reason they did not do that. In journalism, this is called “burying the lede” — putting the main point of your reporting, the most notable fact, under a heap of less important verbiage. Sometimes this happens due to incompetence. Other times, it is deliberate.

Maybe they thought that a complete DNA sequencing of 6 great ape species was a more notable scientific achievement than overturning some IFLS factoid?

And maybe this is why you are a journalist, and not a researcher.

 

[analrapist]

I just hope that religious people won't start using this as proof of their deities without even reading the damn thing.

Too late. Noted Careercow Vox Day has already published two books on the topic (Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene), with more commentary on his blog, https://voxday.net/tag/evolution/ with a list of scientific papers self-published on Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/search?q=metadat...g.name:"Day, Vox"&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=oldest

He addresses the Yoo paper explicitly here: https://voxday.net/2026/04/30/conceding-the-math/

 

[Gar For Archer]

They say humans and pigs are remarkably similar DNA as well, so much so that ive heard we can use pigs for things like insulin production.

Makes speculative evolution works like All Tomorrows a bit more terrifying.

Spec evo becomes a lot less fantastical when you think of the weird fucking animals we have in the real world. Like, all mammals - from humans to elephants to blue whales - likely share a common ancestor of some small rat creature. Then you have wacky shit like seahorses that are somehow a type of fish even though they don't really look like anything else in the ocean. If seahorses were in a spec evo book I'd call BS, you're telling me there's a fish that floats upright, has a prehensile tail that it uses to grab shit with, and the males give birth? But nah it's just an actual animal that exists, and one that most people don't even stop for a second to think about how weird they are.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

The new findings reveal that human DNA is far more different from chimp DNA than previously thought.

I am not remotely surprised by this, since "only 1% difference" implies these two are practically twins separated at birth:

.

So much foolishness, man even thinking he's descended from a chimp clade that broke off thousands of years ago. There's that on its own, but also double down and add that they're, say, more closely related to an actual beast than a parent they share 50% of genetics with:

 

[whatever I feel like]

Ahh, yes, clearly humans were created by God. Thanks, OP.

 

[Strix454]

The other thing to keep in mind about these stupid percentage arguments is that only perhaps 2% of DNA is "coding DNA" while 98% is non-coding DNA.

 

[Epic Fail Man]

You're telling me I'm only 1% away from having a chronically prolapsing anus?

edit: You're telling me I'm only 14% away from having a chronically prolapsing anus?