Uh I don't know what how large a chimp's genome is has to do with anything.
I can only assume that the author of the article assumes that people assume that larger genome = smarter animal. Which nobody does.
I mean, old computers used to be really big-- does that mean they're faster than a new laptop? No.
The corn genome has twice as many genes as the human genome. As far as intelligence goes, size doesn’t matter.
Bad Assume. - The author was musing over the contradiction: A genome that is 10% larger has to be more than 5% different.
Nothing so complicated as that.
The point is that if the Chimp genone is 10% larger than the Human one, then it isn’t possible that there is less than a 5% difference in the two sets.
If I have 100 coins, and you have 110 coins, it is impossible for stack of coins to be 95% identical, because even if they are all pennies, your stack will have 10 pennies where I don’t have any, and will in fact be 10% different from mine.
Whether that distinction has any real VALUE in the discussion is another question entirely.
What a strange conclusion to draw ~ consider the mustard seed ~ it’s got a genome that’d choke a horse eh!
Then why do you even "make" the assumption? In any case, you apparently miss the fact that something which possesses 10% more than something else cannot be 98.5% nor even 95% identical with that other something. To talk about a subset of the comparison without describing the limits of that comparison is not very useful. I would hazard to suggest that a child's DNA is not close to 100% identical to either of the parents, unless there is some unusual genetics going on. I would also say that a child's DNA would be almost exactly 50% identical to either parent.