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? ;-)
“What is your problem, pal?”
You excised the portion saying that they compared one percent of the total respective genomes.