[Junior]

You are making no sense. What I said about the genetic relationship between any two humans as compared to the genetic relationship between two chimps of the same troop is correct.  However, your reply in no way addressed it:

I thought the genome project found "of mice or men" to be more appropriate.

Whatever the relationship between men and mice, it has no bearing on the relationship between any two people as compared to the relationship between two chimps from the same troop.

And National Geo found the human/chimp relationship to be not as close as first thought…

Again, the relationship between humans and chimpanzees has no bearing on the relationship between any two people as compared to the relationship between two chimps from the same troop.

Anyway, I don’t think a troop of chimps will be sending anything to Mars soon regardless... .

Which has no bearing on the relationship between any two people as compared to the relationship between two chimps from the same troop.

Your answer was sort of a "sour grapes" thing.  You couldn't actually address the points in question so you attempted to re-direct the argument into totally irrelevant directions (answers 1 and 2) and to basically pooh-pooh what I said (answer 3) without having to address the argument.

Your technique befits a Democratic presidential candidate, but not a Freeper.

[Heartlander]

However, any two humans from anywhere on the planet are more genetically similar than are two chimpanzees from the same troop.

You made a statement in your opening argument and I did address it… Why so blue?

What I said about the genetic relationship between any two humans as compared to the genetic relationship between two chimps of the same troop is correct.

Source?… BBC?

[Doctor Stochastic]

One should be careful of accusing people of being sequiturous. Most are not.