Showing posts with label Human. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Why Don’t We Find Human And Dinosaur Fossils Together?

Why Don’t We Find Human And Dinosaur Fossils Together?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, July 16, 2025 (Donate) 

Introduction 

Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived together in the past because God, a perfect eyewitness to history, said that He created man and land animals on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24-31). Dinosaurs are land animals, so logically; they were created on Day 6.  

Image from Presentation Library

Those who do not believe the plain reading of the Bible, such as many non-Christians and biblical compromisers, believe the bulk of rock and fossil layers represent billions of years of earth history. Because of this secularized worldview of long ages, they cannot have man and dinosaurs living at the same time. They reinterpret Scripture as well as earth features. 

Do Fossil Layers Represent Many Eons Of Time? 

No—they are primarily a result of a global Flood that was described by God in Genesis 6–8.  They represent rocks that were primarily made during the Flood over the course of about a year. Of course, there have been rock layers formed after the Flood in small doses from local catastrophes like volcanoes and local floods. 

Image from Presentation Library 

This belief about millions of years doesn’t come from the Bible but from sources outside the Bible—man’s ideas, specifically the religion of secular humanism. Rock layers that contain dinosaur fossils tend to be lower (deeper) than the layers with human fossils. Therefore, long age believers interpret this as dinosaurs dying out millions of years before humans appeared.    

Old earth proponents (those who mix secular origins with the Christianity) believe that if man and dinosaurs lived together, their fossils should be found in the same layers.   Since no one has found definitive evidence of humans and dinosaurs in the same layers (Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic), they say that humans and dinosaurs are separated by millions of years of time and, therefore, didn’t live together. 

So, Old earth proponents ask a very good question: Why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils if they lived together? 

We find human fossils and their remains in layers that most creationists largely consider post-Flood. Most of these are probably from burial since the Flood and the scattering of humanity from Babel. It is true that human and dinosaur fossils have yet to be found in the same layers, but does that mean that long age believers are correct when they state that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came into existence? Let’s investigate this question further. 

Were All The Human Pre-Flood Remains Completely Obliterated So That No Evidence Will Be Left? 

This argument is derived from passages such as Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 7:23 where God says he will “blot out” man from the face of the earth using the Flood. However, it may not solve our problem completely. After a lengthy study, Fouts and Wise pointed out that the Hebrew wording for māhâ (machah) referring to “blot out” or “destroy” can and will still leave evidence behind. They say: 

“Although māhâ is properly translated “blot out”, “wipe”, or even “destroy”, it is not to be understood to refer to the complete obliteration of something without evidence remaining.  In every Biblical use of māhâ where it is possible to determine the fate of the blotted, wiped, or destroyed, the continued existence of something is terminated, but evidence may indeed remain of the previous existence and/or the blotting event itself.  Even the theological consideration of the “blotting out” of sin suggests that evidence usually remains (e.g. consequences, scars, sin nature, etc.)”[1] 

Animals were also to be blotted out (Genesis 6:7, 7:4), but we find their remains. In light of this, it is highly possible that human fossils from the Flood could still exist, but haven’t been found yet. 

But the real question is, should we find human fossils in layers that contain dinosaur fossils? To answer this further, we need to estimate how many humans there may have been before the Flood, the likelihood they would have been fossilized, their distribution, how much Flood sediment there was, and whether the remains would have been preserved or not. 

Pre-Flood Population 

Estimates for the pre-Flood population are based on very little information since Genesis 1 doesn’t give extensive family size and growth information. We know that Noah was in the tenth generation of his line and it was about 1650 years after creation. Genesis also indicates that in Noah’s lineage children were being born when their fathers were between the ages of 65 (Enoch to Methuselah) to well over 500 (Noah to his three sons).  

How many generations were there in other lineages? We don’t know. We know the line from Adam to Noah was living upwards of 900 years, but we can’t be certain everyone lived this long.  How often and how many children were born? We don’t know? What were the death rates? We don’t know. 

Despite this lack of information, some estimates have been done. Tom Pickett gives a range of about 5 to 17 billion people.[2] This is based on various population growth rates and generations of 16-22 prior to the Flood. Recall that Noah was in the 10th generation, so this may be well beyond the higher end of the population maximum. The late Henry Morris had conservative estimates as low as 235 million people. He also calculated rates based on modern population growth, giving about 3 billion people.[3] 

John Morris reports estimates that there were about 350 million people pre-Flood.[4] Based on these estimates, pre-Flood populations may have ranged from hundreds of millions to 17 billion people.  

But there is another reality that needs to be factored in. The world before the Flood for 120 years, was extremely violent. So much so, that God decreed judgment. I’ve often said, that if only half of the world acted on this violent hate and committed a murder, they could have cut the population in half in one day! Even many children could have been destroyed by those being evil in that 120 years. 

Thus, I’ve always suspected the population to be very low. In 10 generations, with a slow rate of growth, and a grossly high murder rate for over a century, the population could literally be only a few thousand.   

Were All Humans Fossilized? 

During the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, the Associated Press reported that although many humans were killed during the catastrophe, surprisingly very few livestock animals were killed.[5] Based on this evidence, it is possible that land animals may have had a better chance of survival as the Flood began to devastate and overtake the coastlines than humans did. Many animals stay farther inland and humans tend to live on the coast.  

As sad as it was, the Tsunami of 2004 was a good example of the destructiveness of water—even though it was a relatively small flood. According to the United Nation’s Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, nearly 43,000 of the approximate 230,000 people that died, were never found—and we know exactly where they were lost.[6]  

Let’s do some rough calculations based on these numbers in order to get a general idea for the number of possible candidates for human fossilization during the Flood. What these numbers can tell us is that 187,000 bodies were found at or near the surface, hence not buried and would not have had the possibility of fossilization. The others (43,000) could have been missing at sea or possibly buried. Those few buried by sediment, would be the ones eligible for fossilization.  

Let’s be generous and assume all 43,000 were buried. This would give us a generous maximum of 18.7% of the Tsunami flood victims as possible candidates for fossilization.  Considering they were buried over an area of 55,440 square kilometers,[7] we might expect to find 0.77 bodies per square kilometer. This translates to about 2 bodies per square mile. With these odds, finding any of the missing people would be highly unlikely! Consider that a global Flood with a low population would be nearly impossible to find human fossils. 

Were All Humans Evenly Distributed In The Flood Sediment? 

We know humans have a tendency to live in groups like towns, villages, and cities and the surrounding area. People were probably not evenly distributed before the Flood.  Before the Flood, a city was recorded in Genesis 4:17 in the land of wandering (Nod).  In accordance with this, most of the population today, lives within 100 miles of the coastline. One report says: 

“Already nearly two-thirds of humanitysome 3.6 billion people—crowd along a coastline, or live with 150 kilometers of one.”[8] 

This is further confirmation that the pre-Flood civilizations probably were not evenly distributed either. If man wasn’t evenly distributed, then the likelihood of man being evenly distributed in Flood sediment becomes extremely remote.  

How Much Flood Sediment Is There?  

John Woodmorappe’s studies indicate that there are about 700 million cubic kilometers which translates to about 168 million cubic miles of Flood sediment.[9] This number actually comes from International Geology Review 24(11), Ronov, A.B. 1982, The Earth’s sedimentary shell, pages 1321-1339. 

John Morris states that there is about 350 million cubic miles of Flood sediment.[10] However, this number may be high since the total volume of water on the earth is estimated at about 332.5 million cubic miles according to the U.S. Geological Survey.[11] 

As mentioned prior to the Flood, it is likely that populations were not evenly distributed. However, for the sake of the argument, let’s assume it was to make the calculation reasonable. Let’s also use the smaller estimate of Flood sediment calculated by John Woodmorappe to be generous. Let’s also assume that all the fossils would have survived to the present.    

Let’s take Henry Morris’ maximum figure (3 billion people) and use the percentage we calculated from the Tsunami (18.7%) for the possible candidates for fossilization. 18.7% of the 3 billion yields about 560 million fossilized bodies. If we distribute these 560 million fossilized bodies evenly throughout the world’s Flood sediment, we get just over 3 human fossils per cubic mile (3.3 fossilized bodies per cubic mile). This would be like finding a needle in a haystack! 

But realistically, it was more like a few thousand people, and most of them were not buried but rather drown after clinging to floating debris for a time, floated, swam, rotted, decayed, etc. So, the realistic numbers would be more like finding a single needle buried somewhere in an entire state. 

What Do We Find In The Fossil Record? 

Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. When we look at the fossil record, we find: 

·       ~95% of all fossils are marine organisms

·       ~95% of the remaining 5%, are algae, plants/trees

·       ~95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of invertebrates including insects.

·       The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. [95% of land vertebrates consist of less than 1 bone and 95% of mammals’ fossils are from the Ice Age after the flood][12] 

Image from Presentation Library 

The Flood was a marine catastrophe that overtook the land. It makes logical sense that we would find many marine fossils on land. Also, vertebrates are not as common as other types of life forms. Therefore, we wouldn’t expect to find as many in the fossil record. This makes sense of these percentages and helps understand why vertebrates are poorly represented and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record. 

Let’s Think About The Original Question 

Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live together. Let’s think about it this way instead: If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together.  

A great example is that of the coelacanth. Coelacanth fossils are found in layers below dinosaurs and in layers that date about the “same age” as dinosaurs by secular reckoning.[13] It was thought the Coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago because their fossils are not found after this time.  

However, in 1938 living populations were found in the Indian Ocean![14] This example shows that the fossil record is not complete. It is not truly representative of living populations. Remember, we don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths (or crocodiles, rhinoceros, etc.) either, but we live together in this day and age. Regarding coelacanths, people are enjoying them for dinner in some parts of the world! This is but one of the many living fossils that illustrates this concept.  


Images from Presentation Library 

If we do not find humans and dinosaur fossils buried together, then it is still consistent with a biblical worldview—because we don’t expect to find humans and dinosaurs buried together. If human and dinosaur bones are found in the same geologic layers in the future, it would be consistent with the biblical view. 

In fact, it would be more of a problem for those who accept the geologic layers as evidence for millions of years. If the fossil layers really represented millions of years, then finding a human and dinosaur fossilized in the same layers would cause problems because in the old earth view, man wasn’t supposed to be that old, or dinosaurs that young.  

As biblical creationists, we don’t require that human and dinosaur fossils have to be found buried together.  Whether they are found together or not, does not affect the biblical view.  Fouts and Wise may very well be correct, the evidence left behind for humans before the Flood, may simply not have been found yet.  

But let’s not miss the obvious answer either. Humans and dinosaurs were likely not living together and thus not candidates to buried together. If there was a global Flood today (which will not happen due to the promises of God) what are the odds that a person and a rhinoceros would be buried together? The odds would be very low for hosts of reasons. 

There are good reasons we don’t expect to find humans and dinosaurs buried together. Not finding them together is not a big a deal to the biblical position. Much more could be discussed but this was meant as a short introduction to the subject.   

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.



[1] David Fouts and Kurt Wise, Blotting our and breaking up: miscellaneous Hebrew Studies in Geocatastrophism, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburg, PA, 1998, Page 219.

[2] Tom Pickett, Population of the PreFlood World, http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html Download date: 8/21/2006.

[3] Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, page 77-78.

[4] John Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Eleventh Printing, May 2002, Page 71.

[5] Gemunu Amarasinghe, Tsunami kills few animals in Sri Lanka, Associated Press, December 30, 2004, http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/tsunami_wildlife_041230.html Download date: 8/25/2006.

[6] The Human Toll http://www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org/country/humantoll.asp Download date: June 6, 2006.

[7] Pieter Waalewijn and Daniel Renault, Human tragedy, more than physical damage, places Tsunami among worst water-related disasters ever, http://www.fao.org/tsunami/stories/spotlight1005.htm Download date: August 31, 2006.

[8] Don Hinrichsen, Our Common Seas: Coasts in Crisis, Earthscan / James & James Publishers, 1990; Populations pressure burdens oceans, June 10, 2010, https://www.bairdmaritime.com/shipping/populations-pressure-burdens-oceans.

[9] John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology, Institute for Creation Research 1999, p. 59.

[10] Ibid. (Ref 4)

[11] How Much Water is There on Earth?, U.S. Geological Survey, November 13, 2019, https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth.

[12] John Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Eleventh Printing, May 2002, p. 70; Andrew Snelling, Where are all the human fossils? Creation magazine 14(1):28-33, December, 1991.

[13] Lynn Dicks, The creatures time forgot, New Scientist, October 23, 1999; 164: (2209) page 36-39.

[14] Rebecca Driver, Sea monsters…more that a legend?, Creation magazine 19(4):38-42, September 1997, Found online here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/seamonsters.asp.

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Human Chimp DNA Similarity

 

Human And Chimp DNA Similarity—Not What We’ve Been Led To Believe

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, December 18, 2024 (Donate)

You’ve probably heard that humans and chimps are somewhere around 98% similar in our genetic makeup. There is a huge problem with this though. The claim that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA is an oversimplification of a comparison of “cherry-picked” segments of DNA and thus a misrepresentation of the actual genetic evidence. The amount of similarity, after further research is much, much larger than 2%.

Is Similarity A Good Or Bad Find?

There is similarity though, but not 98%. That number that keeps getting thrown out there. What might surprise you though is that creationists expect a significant amount of similarity.

The fact that God created man with a physiology similar to mammals should automatically clue anyone off that there is going to be similarity. Of course, man is not an animal; and even though our bodies are made from dust with a physiology similar to certain animals, man is made in a more unique way—in the image of an eternal, ruling, logical, knowledgeable, wise, and loving God.

The fact that we discovered similarity in our DNA (with hosts of other animals and plants too!) is an amazing confirmation of what we expect to find in light of Scripture. God is the brilliant designer—the greatest of engineers!

The test of a great engineer is to be able to reuse ideas, designs, materials, and parts in multiple applications—sometimes with slight modifications to the specific use. Seeing how God did this across the board with plants as well as with animal life—dwarfs anything that man could do. This excites me as a creationist. 

Apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and others are not related to man.

Nevertheless, we need to be honest with the genetic data about similarity—there is some, but definitely not 98%. So, what is it? We’ll get to that but first, you need to understand where the 98% number came from, then you’ll be able to see why the new, more thorough, data is so powerful!

Where Did The 98% Number Come From?

By 1990, the claim of 98% similarity between humans and chimps was engrained in society. According to J. Cohen, it began with A. Wilson and M. King in the mid-1970s.[1] Other built on this.[2]

The 98% claim further took the world by storm when the human and chimp DNA was mapped and researchers were arguing genetically that it was 96-99%.[3]

However, the 98% similarity statistic arises from a flawed methodology that assumes the religion of secular humanism to be true from the outset (which holds to evolution). As a result, when secular scientists compare human and chimp genomes, they align sequences based on similarity and neglect the rest. Yes, you read that right!

Follow me here, significant portions of the genomes do not align well and are often excluded from the comparisons. This cherry-picking of data creates an inflated measure of similarity.

For example:

  • Only the most comparable DNA sections (exons or protein-coding regions) were often compared.
  • “Non-alignable” regions, which can differ significantly, were excluded, leading to an incomplete picture.

Thus, the comparison isn't a direct measurement of the entire genomes. In other words, if you ignore sections that aren’t similar and just look at sections that are, then you are not being true to the % similarity. Let me do an analogy to give you an idea of what is going on.

Let’s say you are in a grocery shop and you are going to compare two different cartons of eggs. When you look at the first dozen, all the eggs look good and none are cracked. Then you look at the second dozen and 5 are cracked and messy.

Now, if the grocer came up and said they are basically the same and offers to show you by closely comparing 6 good eggs from both containers to convince you that they are basically the same and then tries to sell you the dozen that contains the 5 broken eggs. Would you buy that argument (and that dozen eggs with 5 broken)? The grocer did an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the entire carton of eggs.

In the same way, the claim that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their entire genome is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of genetic evidence.

The Entire Genome Comparisons

When the entire genomes of humans and chimpanzees were finally examined, the differences became far more than the often-cited 1–2%. There are major differences in structure such gene order, chromosome structure, indels, and genome length but are ignored in these early percentage-based similarity claims.

The 2005 analysis of the chimpanzee genome also pointed out that when considering the things that were initially not analyzed (e.g., insertions, deletions, and duplications), the differences between humans and chimps add up to be closer to 15% or more.[4]

Stop for a moment and ponder this—this is not a 3% difference or even a 4% difference, but a massive 15% difference! The initial claims of 98% similar were off by at least 13% by the evolutionists own reckoning. Yes, breathe this in for a moment and notice how the secular worldview influenced an entire generation to believe that humans and chimps were 98% when it wasn’t even close. By this study, 85% similar (could be more!). That is huge.

One should also highlight the importance of considering functional differences in the genome. Even small genetic differences can lead to major distinctions in traits, behavior, and biology. For example, regulatory DNA regions, which control how genes are expressed, show major differences between humans and chimps. Also, the expression and timing of genes involved in brain development, speech, and locomotion vary a lot.

To put this into perspective, even if there were a “superficial similarity” of 98% in sequences, the function of that DNA is what matters. Humans and chimps are fundamentally distinct creatures in terms of biological complexity, cognition, and design.

Anatomically, human and chimp feet have many differences.

One area where differences are especially dramatic is the Y chromosome—obviously talking males here. Researchers have shown in their studies that the human Y chromosome and chimp Y chromosome differ considerably—by up to 30–50% in sequence and structure.[5] This utterly destroys the idea of near-total genetic similarity. We are now talking about 50-70% differences in the y chromosomes. X chromosomes don’t fare much better when compared. Geneticist Jeffry Tompkins writes:

“Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions.”[6]

After the latest round of research, the overall average DNA similarity between humans and chimps is sitting at about 70%.[7] That 30% dissimilar is like an avalanche on the evolutionary claims of close similarity. This is massive dissimilarity throws a monkey wrench into the evolutionary claim of a close human-chimp ancestor.

Concluding Remarks

The oft-cited 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is a result of selective comparisons, “leaving-out” large genomic differences, and “incorrect-method-based” assumptions that favor evolutionary conclusions.

When the entire genome is considered, humans and chimps are far less similar, both genetically and functionally (only 70% similar). These findings actually more in line with what we expect with the biblical view that humans are uniquely created in God's image, distinct from animals.

To better understand the details of this discussion, I highly recommend that you read:

1. D. DeWitt What About the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA?, The New Answers Book 3 (Ham and Hodge gen. eds.), January 14, 2014.

2. J. Bergman and J. Tomkins Is the human genome nearly identical to chimpanzee?—a reassessment of the literature, Journal of Creation 26(1):54–60, April, 2012

3. J. Tompkins Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%, Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63–69, February 20, 2013.



[1] J. Cohen, Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science Magazine 316:1836, June, 29, 2007.

[2] Hoyer et al., Examination of hominid evolution by DNA sequence homology, Journal of Human Evolution 1:645–649, 1972; C. Sibley and J. Ahlquist, The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization, Journal of Molecular Evolution 20:2–15, 1984; C. Sibley, DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data, Journal of Molecular Evolution 30:202–236, 1990. 

[3] Broad Institute Communications, Comparison of human and chimpanzee genomes reveals striking similarities and differences, Broad Institute, August 31, 2005, https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/comparison-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes-reveals-striking-similarities-and-differences; The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomeNature. 437:69-87. DOI:10.1038/nature04072.

[4] The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomeNature. 437:69-87. DOI:10.1038/nature04072.

[5] J. Tompkins Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%, Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63–69, February 20, 2013.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

False Doctrine: Praying To And For The Dead?

False Doctrine: Praying To And For The Dead? Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI Biblical Authority Ministries, June2, 2026 ( Donate ) Ever...