[[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-
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?