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?
[[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?]]
Please point to where i ever claimed 85%- so no- I’m not being deceitful- I’m asking about the viability of non coding areas and what importance they may have- I’m not the one throwing out all the non coding areas, nor am i the one using human genome to substitute for incomplete chimp genome-