Many are not aware of that, so I was simply being as clear as possible.
Two, the chances of a human giving birth to anything have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection(for that birth). It has to do with what natural selection will have to work with, that is, the random mutations that had to have happened in order to separate humans and chimps. Since mutations are "random" events and they are occurred there is a finite probability that they can occur. (sounds logical doesn't it?)
No, it doesn't. It only sounds logical if you're utterly ignorant of genetics in general, the human genome in particular, and the process of natural selection.
There is essentially zero chance of a human having a chimpanzee offspring. Speciation doesn't occur in a single birth, and the subject remains irrelevant to natural selection.
I am not speaking of your flawed definition of species. I am speaking of clear things called mutations. They are definite things. They are changes in the DNA sequence which do not depend on a particular definition. They are "rolls of the dice". Since they did occur, they can occur and they can occur together, not likely, but they can occur. Now the reason for this hike in the park is to elucidate the nagging connection between probability, "entropy", information and the unlikely events required to either change one life form into another or to create life. "Mutations" can occur without regard to natural selection. Natural selection does not exist without the mutations. There is a non-zero probability of human DNA mutating into chimp DNA or vice-versa using mutations alone. There is a zero probability of that occurring using natural selection alone.
Now that we have established your non-acceptance of mutations alone producing a 2% difference what remains to be determined is exactly how many mutations above the 2% difference you deem necessary for natural selection to work. Or is every mutation a "keeper"?