[[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”?
Both are true: some researchers say some non-coding DNA may have actual functions, however, no researchers have identified positive or negative affects on survivability & reproduction from mutations in non-coding DNA.
That's why Natural Selection does not eliminate mutations in non-coding DNA and so they accumulate generation after generation.
So, when you use non-coding DNA to claim only 85% similarity between chimps & humans, well, then, imho, you are practicing just a weee little bit of, ahem, deceit yourself, aren't you?