Replies

Actually, you’re reading too much into what the zoologist said and absolutely refuse to see that even your own article leaves the 1% number as valid.....AND that the zoologist left the 1% number as valid as well. Nowhere has anyone said that the 1% number is WRONG/INCORRECT/REFUTED...or any other term you want to use.
What he’s saying is that limiting the understanding of the differences between the species to a 1% difference based on DNA sequences is a hinderance to further understanding of the total difference between the species because there’s other things at work that HAVE to be taken into consideration. He’s not saying that the 1% number is invalid, only that it limits understanding if you limit your thinking to that 1%....when that 1% actually leads to genetic expression and physiological differences greater than 1%.

The 1% number is still valid because it’s a simple comparison of the DNA sequences, no matter how much you think it’s been disqualified....that it’s a sham....when it is not...even according to your article. So nice of you to give me all my ammo. “But truth be told....it’s not the WHOLE STORY”....meaning that the 1% is valid. “On TOP OF THE 1%”...meaning that the 1% number is valid.

Everything you’ve shown backs up that the 1% number is valid.....because it is.

One cannot disqualify the 1% because it is simple fact generated by a DNA sequencer....not by an analysis or a conjured up formula or an opinion. The sequencer spits out the sequence and it’s compared objectively to another sequence.

The 1% number is still valid because it’s a simple comparison of the DNA sequences, no matter how much you think it’s been disqualified....that it’s a sham....when it is not...even according to your article. So nice of you to give me all my ammo. “But truth be told....it’s not the WHOLE STORY”....meaning that the 1% is valid. “On TOP OF THE 1%”...meaning that the 1% number is valid.
Everything you’ve shown backs up that the 1% number is valid.....because it is.

One cannot disqualify the 1% because it is simple fact generated by a DNA sequencer....not by an analysis or a conjured up formula or an opinion. The sequencer spits out the sequence and it’s compared objectively to another sequence.

Awwww. You're going to spoil all of their fun with a few inconvenient facts.

(And they were so hopeful that the creationist website they got this stuff from was accurate, when in fact it was lying to them.)

Look, you can try to rationalize it all you want. They admit they knew that the 1% was not the whole story thirty years ago. They pushed this myth all the way up to the present time because the “1% difference served us well”. In other words, they deliberately pushed this lie to dupe a mostly unsuspecting public (to include school children!) into believing that humans and chimps are more similar than they actually are in order to make their myth of common descent more plausible. Again, in the words of the zoologist quoted in Science:

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

And if that isn’t enough, the author of the science article ADMITS that they new the 1% figure was a myth right from the beginning: “But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.” They left this lie intact for thirty years to give the impression/”increase our appreciation” of the Church of Darwin’s phony theology of common descent.