[[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
So, you really don’t know what you think?
OK, do you at least “get” that different methods produce different results, and no method is necessarily “deceitful” if we understand how it was done?
I’ll repeat my understanding that tbe significance of the difference between 98.5% and 85% is whether non-coding DNA has any value in Natural Selection.
Some say it does.
But logically, if it did, tbe we would not expect to see so many more mutations in non-coding than coding DNA, yet we do.
It suggests the affects of non-coding mutations are minor to zero.
And that means using non-coding to measure DNA % similarity is less tban ideal.
For meaningful comparisons, the 98.5% is more realistic.
You disagree?