Cytochrome c is the slowest-ticking of molecular clocks. That means it doesn't get mutations very often. That means you don't expect a big difference between man and chimp and there isn't one.
Do you acknowledge your protests about the mutation between man and chimp were based on ignoring the difference between a protein itself and the gene that codes it?
Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said there had never been amino acids found in a meteorite?
Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said DNA eliminates a whale-hippo relationship?
Are you ever going to get back to me on why, if the reptile-jawbone-to-mammal-earbone transition was just an artifact of Cuffey's drawing fakery, there's a parallel transformation occuring in mammalian fetuses? You had the nerve to spin it as "Lies, all lies." Why does this other line of evidence point the same way?
I certainly do not, and the above statement shows your complete ignorance as to how the cell works. Let me give it to you from an article since you will call me names if I explain it myself:
In addition:
PROTEINS
Proteins are polymeric molecules constructed from twenty building blocks called amino acids which are linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins are consequently often referred to as polypeptides. Polypeptide sequences vary in length from tens to hundreds of amino acids. The charge, size, shape and three-dimensional structure of a protein is specified by its amino acid composition and sequence. The three-dimensional structure determines function and biological activity.
From: Functions of DNA and Proteins
So your statement is completely specious. The DNA codes the amino acid sequence of the protein. In fact, what we call a gene is the DNA sequence that encodes the protein. In fact the way we often find what genes do what is by looking at the proteins, what the sequence for it is, and then looking for the gene that makes it. So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein.
Therefore, my statement was correct: the article contradicted itself and you contradicted the article in an attempt to save your nonsensical proof of evolution.