==Can you not comprehend that both translated and untranslated regions of Chromosome 1 and 2 were compared?
It was only a linear comparison, which means very little given the fact that the untranslated regions behave in a non-linear fashion (i.e. the five, seven or more interleaving, overlapping, functionally different transcripts that derive from a single segment of code mentioned earlier).
==Do you admit that when comparing all of chromosome one and two that humans and chimps are more similar in terms of DNA sequence, or are you still maintaining (despite me showing you the data) that such is a “logical impossibility”?
I will grant that their DNA is more similar with respect to linear DNA. But I still maintain that what makes them so similar to the other great apes, and so different from humans, cannot be explained by the linear DNA sequences you are so fixated on. Therefore, the obvious fact that chimps are closer to in body plan and functional needs to the other great apes than to humans means the answer lies elsewhere. I am predicting that this answer will be found in the untranslated regions, and this answer will once again place chimps closer to the great apes than to humans. I also maintain that this should be obvious to anyone (unless of course they have been blinded by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, and thus have a vested interest in Darwood’s increasingly discredited “tree of life”).
But over 95% of the data I showed you was untranslated regions.
It would take a lot of ‘cutting and pasting’ of those scant GREEN regions (where humans were unique) to make up for the swaths of RED regions (where gorillas were unique and humans and chimps were the same). So this is your new claim? That when comparing untranslated transcripts of humans and chimps genomes that they will be less similar than untranslated transcripts of chimps and gorillas?
That is a goal post far removed from you claiming that chimps and humans being more similar to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.
But it is nice that you FINALLY acknowledge that your claim, as originally stated, was WRONG.