You are babbling now. You already responded to my refutation. It is not your incoherence that was the basis of the refutation, but rather your false analogy. You did learn about that in Speech 101 did you not? Your initial premise is a false analogy, I need not bother with the rest.
I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. I gave no analogy. I simply stated the logical fomula for chimp DNA hypothesis. You stated essentially the sAME formula! I think we are done since you are unable to coherently respond to the problem.