[gore3000]

Almost. It can also show that the mutation took place after the chimp-human line split from the rest of the anthropoids but before the chimp-human lines split from each other.

Nice verbal foot dance, but it does not sell. Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps. That is not the case therefore this is a proof against evolution.

[Junior]

Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps.

Huh? If the ancestor of humans and chimps broke off from the other apes, developed the mutation, and then split to form humans and chimps, only humans and chimps would have the mutation, and not the other apes -- which was precisely what was posted to you. Either you didn't read the post all the way through or you did not understand what was being said. Either way you should have asked for clarification before posting the nonsense above.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps.

The first statement is correct. The second is wrong. It makes the unwarranted assumption that a prior ancestor of both chimps and humans is a prior ancestor to all apes.