[VadeRetro]

How much does it differ for everyone else?

Don't have the "total DNA" numbers, but you can do some interesting things looking at the cytochrome c gene, which has lots of places within its structure that are indifferent to mutation.

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10⁹³). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10^-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10^-25.

From 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4 (The Molecular Sequence Evidence).

The "tree" you get from cytochrome c studies looks a lot like the pre-existing morphological tree. There's no reason except common descent that this should be, unless God was just trying to mislead us.

[VadeRetro]

Meant to put you on post 1102 as well. It's some of that "proof" (well, evidence) you spew about never getting. You get showered with evidence. Your word is the last thing anyone should take that you do not.

I'm the one who never gets answers.

[Virginia-American]

Thanks for the cytochrome c information. I have yet to hear how creationists deal with
1) vestigal organs like the appendix (except to claim they're not vestigal)
2) the hipbone of whales, and,
3) birth defects such as an occasional baby with a tail.

My own opinion is that any one of these, on its own, is strong evidence for common descent. Add the molecular data, which corroborates in detail, and the case for evolution is overwhelmingly proven.

[Junior]

Geez. The Creationists are so adept at working out probabilities with incomplete sets, what do you think they'll make of probabilities where the actuall parameters are known?

[gore3000]

"Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively "

What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.

I know of course that you will continue to insist on the above lie and will ask me for proof against it. I tell you now, I do not have to disprove the lie. It has already been proven wrong by many scientists.