“To cite just one example, it is said that human and chimp DNA is something like 98% identical.”
This is completely untrue.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html
“When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.”
“But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.”
“The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. “It’s just a glance,” he says.”
Do you have any more fables you’d like to peddle?
responding in #289 BenKenobi: "This is completely untrue.
BenKenobi quoting link: “When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.” [in other words: 98.6% indentical]
BenKenobi quoting link: “But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.” [=94.6% identical]
BenKenobi: "Do you have any more fables you’d like to peddle?"
What is your problem, pal?
Why are going to insult me for saying "something like 98% identical," when according to your own numbers a more-or-less random comparison produced results of 98.6% using one method and 94.6% using another?
Do you consider the difference between "something like 98% identical" and 98.6% or 94.6% identical scientifically significant? If so, in what way?
Or were you just hoping to distract attention away from the point of my comment in post #194? ;-)