Sorry Strawberry, the zoologist is named and quoted in the AAAS/Science article. They knew that the 1% difference was a sham all along. That’s deliberate fraud in my book, or at the very least (as another FReeper pointed out) “spin” bordering on fraud. If you refuse to see this for what it is, that’s your problem, not mine: Doesn''t say that anywhere in the article. Quit lying and fabricating falshoods. The fact is that on a gene by gene basis, the diffrence is 1%. The point of the article is that sciecne is learning that gene expression is responsible for more differences than simple genomic variances.
So when you say there is fraud involved you are a LIAR!
==Doesn''t say that anywhere in the article. Quit lying and fabricating falshoods. The fact is that on a gene by gene basis, the diffrence is 1%. The point of the article is that sciecne is learning that gene expression is responsible for more differences than simple genomic variances.
They have known about these differences for a long time now. Even the authors of the 1975 paper that got this whole 1% myth started admitted the following, in the words Science's Jon Cohen: "But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes."
But that didn't stop the Church of Darwin from shifting into high gear and using this clever myth in a disingenuous attempt to further "convince" the public that humans and chimps are related via common descent. Indeed, as recently as October of 2006, Time magazine ran the following article ("What makes us different") with the following picure. The Church of Darwin is nothing but a religion preached by a pack of liars who will tell almost any lie to gain a few more converts:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html