85% is the figure from this thread's article, mentioned there five times and about a dozen times in these posts.
I assume you accept 85% and indeed much prefer it to the "deceitful" more usual number of 98.5% similarity.
What ExDemMom pointed out is the difference: measuring coding versus non-coding DNA.
If we stick with just protein coding DNA, then we get about 98.5% similarity of human & chimp DNA.
But if we include the non-coding then similarity drops to just 85% -- or at least that's my non-professional, interested observer understanding.
So, are you telling us now you have a problem with the 85% number?
[[I assume you accept 85%]]
See what happens when you assume? I stated clearly in several posts though that I was not sure what the % would be- I even cited a link to several ‘secular studies’ comparisons that came up with different %’s and wondered out loud which would be more accurate-
[[So, are you telling us now you have a problem with the 85% number?]]
I never said i had a problem with it or accepted it- you assumed wrong