Bob434 is calling comparisons of just the coding regions "deceitful" because they give us figures like 98% similarity between chimps & humans.
ExDemMom points out that non-coding regions are much more subject to enduring mutations, since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.
Hence non-coding mutations are not weeded out by Natural Selection and thus accumulate generation to generation.
So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.
But in terms of actual working parts -- protein coding DNA -- the old number of 98% (plus or minus) similarity remains as valid as ever.
And the reason is Natural Selection.
[[So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity,]]
I never stated that the whole genome was necessary to compare- only pointing out that, as ifinnigan states, that some of the non coding regions are more important than we’re being led to believe by the ‘ape to man’ crowd-
And yes, I use the word deceit because of how the latest studies were conducted- throwing out info that was pertinent, and ‘filling in the gaps/ by using human genome instead of a complete chimp genome to do the comparisons as the original article indicated
[[since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.]]
Two posts ago you stated it may- which is it? “No known Effect”? Or “May be according to some”?
“So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.”
That’s right.
It was right hundreds of posts ago too.