Replies

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.

Look, you can ignore the 1% number all you want, but the 1% number is still valid...as EVERY quote you have thus far quoted HAS PROVEN by leaving the 1% number intact...by including it as "part of the story"...as a "hindrance" and not as "infactual/untrue/refuted". Actually, it varies from around 0.8% to about 2% depending on the areas compared.....with most compared areas being around 1%.

It's a simple fact of comparison.

The zoologists quote cannot in ANY way be translated to what you want it to say.

"Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help"

He's very simply stating that relying solely on the 1% number is a hindrance to understanding the whole picture. Go on, translate is all you want and it'll say the same thing....that it's a hindrance to rely on the 1% number...because there's...get this...MORE TO THE STORY.

Once again, the quote provided PROVES you wrong. "But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. "

Read it VERY slowly a few times. Maybe, just MAYBE it'll sink in this time. I really doubt it, but can hope once in a while. Engage the noodle....If the 1% number isn't "the whole story"....then it's PART OF THE STORY...that "there's MORE to the story than the 1%". Anyone that's a biologist can tell you "there's more to the story" than a simple comparison of DNA sequences. It's common knowledge amongst us biologists that've actually studied this stuff.

Comprehension is the key.....your personal views are getting in the way of simple english comprehension. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.