"And another funny thing is earlier on this thread someone said the coding regions show 99%."
I think I posted that. From the original paper, the coding regions were 99% identical (this is from memory, maybe it was 98.6%?). The 96% figure was for the whole genome including the non-coding regions.
What's the problem? Most of our genes are identical to the chimps, the non-coding regions, which we are just beginning to understand, is where the major differences are.
What do you want? "This is the Chimp/Human transformation gene." Turn it on and you get js1138; turn it off and you get Bozo?
I am not being argumentitive. I'm trying to find out what point tallhappy is trying to make. Is 99% good for evolution or bad? Is 96% good or bad? Is the problem in some technical detail of the argument?
I read through some of his earlier posts, and he was complaining that we were oversimplifyiing molecular biology. Well golly, why would anyone oversimplify molecular biology on a forum where maybe three people are qualified to lecture on it?
My point has been, if there is a problem, it is possible to explain it to bright people.
Accuracy and coherence.
I was simply correcting mistakes. The 98 - 99 % figure applies not just to the coding region where of course there would be a higher level of homology due to the need to conserve function, but the whole genome shows this high number as well.