Are we really 99 Percent the Same as Chimps?

[abelcainsbrother]

Not only that but the whole evolution tree of life cannot be true based on the evidence evolutionists use for evidence life evolves.They still have no credible mechanism for life evolving. They put different kinds of life under a micro-scope and observe the normal changes you get with DNA that leads to normal variation amongst a population and tell you life is evolving above the species level just because they can no longer breed but always remain in their population even after they adapt also.There are dog breeds that cannot breed and they are not evolved above the species level,they are still dogs and remain in the population. Yet we are taught that environmental pressures,natural selection,mutations,etc that we are all taught causes life to evolve but they have absolutely no effect on any population. All you ever see is normal variation amongst a population and this is just stating the obvious. This means chimps cannot be related to humans at all and no life can evolve out of its population to be a new kind of life.Variation is normal,evolution is not. In evolution science normal variation amongst a population is used for evidence for micro-evolution,macro-evolution,adaptation,natural selection,mutations,speciation,etc.Normal variation is evidence for everything and covers their definitions.

[hughfarey]

It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone.

Really? then it's good to read some proper research to see whether it really does back your opinion.

The Myth of 1%.

Well, I think we've already covered that. It's a popular press generalisation based on some research into small pieces of DNA which are sufficiently similar to be directly comparable. It is not possible to make such an arbitrary statement without stating very specifically what 1% actually means. As you so pertinently quote: “There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms” and you're obviously correct.

However, I think you then went too far in saying that because this particular generalisation was not a demonstrable fact, that therefore there was no data to suggest that human, chimp and chicken DNA was more or less similar, thus providing evidence for independent creation. You go so far as to reference the Science Magazine article "The Myth of 1%" without apparently noticing that it refers to research into another way of comparing DNA, replacing 1% with "a whopping 6.4%". 'Whopping', seems to me a little over the top. The authors show that by their method, humans are 93.4% similar to chimps, which hardly supports your stated view that human, chimp and chicken DNA is equally different. Furthermore, your reference to the scientific literature at all hardly supports your other contention that it's all guesswork.

You then refer to another article that examines an even tinier proportion of an animal's DNA, the "male-specific region of the Y chromosome" (not even the whole chromosome, note), and compared that of humans and chimps in various ways. First they found this:

"Given that primate sex chromosomes are hundreds of millions of years old, theories of decelerating decay would predict that the chimpanzee and human MSYs should have changed little since the separation of these two lineages just six million years ago. To test this prediction, we aligned and compared the nucleotide sequences of the chimpanzee and human MSYs. As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)."

However, then, to their surprise, they found this:

"Surprisingly, however, > 30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. In this respect the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where < 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks an homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa."

And they conclude this:

"In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in, respectively, the chimpanzee and human lineages is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units. By contrast, in the remainder of the genome, comparison of chimpanzee draft sequence with human reference sequence suggests that the gene content of the two species differs by < 1%. Indeed, at six million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."

Now, re-reading that, can you honestly say that it leads to this conclusion (yours): "There is ample evidence to support the claim that the chimp and human genomes are not similar at all as is suggested in the OP"? If so, then I can only respectfully disagree. So, of course, does John Hawkes, in his article beginning "Holy Crap!" He too is well aware that human and chimp DNA is overwhelmingly similar except in some small, but important and interesting instances.

[abelcainsbrother]

It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone.

Really? then it's good to read some proper research to see whether it really does back your opinion.

The Myth of 1%.

Well, I think we've already covered that. It's a popular press generalisation based on some research into small pieces of DNA which are sufficiently similar to be directly comparable. It is not possible to make such an arbitrary statement without stating very specifically what 1% actually means. As you so pertinently quote: “There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms” and you're obviously correct.

However, I think you then went too far in saying that because this particular generalisation was not a demonstrable fact, that therefore there was no data to suggest that human, chimp and chicken DNA was more or less similar, thus providing evidence for independent creation. You go so far as to reference the Science Magazine article "The Myth of 1%" without apparently noticing that it refers to research into another way of comparing DNA, replacing 1% with "a whopping 6.4%". 'Whopping', seems to me a little over the top. The authors show that by their method, humans are 93.4% similar to chimps, which hardly supports your stated view that human, chimp and chicken DNA is equally different. Furthermore, your reference to the scientific literature at all hardly supports your other contention that it's all guesswork.

You then refer to another article that examines an even tinier proportion of an animal's DNA, the "male-specific region of the Y chromosome" (not even the whole chromosome, note), and compared that of humans and chimps in various ways. First they found this:

"Given that primate sex chromosomes are hundreds of millions of years old, theories of decelerating decay would predict that the chimpanzee and human MSYs should have changed little since the separation of these two lineages just six million years ago. To test this prediction, we aligned and compared the nucleotide sequences of the chimpanzee and human MSYs. As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)."

However, then, to their surprise, they found this:

"Surprisingly, however, > 30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. In this respect the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where < 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks an homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa."

And they conclude this:

"In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in, respectively, the chimpanzee and human lineages is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units. By contrast, in the remainder of the genome, comparison of chimpanzee draft sequence with human reference sequence suggests that the gene content of the two species differs by < 1%. Indeed, at six million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."

Now, re-reading that, can you honestly say that it leads to this conclusion (yours): "There is ample evidence to support the claim that the chimp and human genomes are not similar at all as is suggested in the OP"? If so, then I can only respectfully disagree. So, of course, does John Hawkes, in his article beginning "Holy Crap!" He too is well aware that human and chimp DNA is overwhelmingly similar except in some small, but important and interesting instances.

It makes no difference what John Hawkes says.He does not even know if life evolves and only has normal variation amongst a populaton for evidence life evolves.In his head he believes chimps and humans are related but he has no evidence to suggest one kind of life can evolve out of its population above the species level.He is making it up as he goes along based on his belief life evolves.Even if the DNA is very similar it in noway proves or shows life evolves there are other explanations that have nothing to do with life evolving.But because he believes life evolves without evidence he is going to say that the DNA is similar to humans.

Until you evolutionists actually produce a credible mechanism to show life evolves instead of evidence that just documents the normal variation we see in the different populations of life nobody should believe life evolves. It is up to scientists to produce evidence life evolves and they are nowhere close. The reason why you avoid me is because I'm right and you cannot refute me because I have evidence to back up what I've explained and you don't. Evolutionists rely on faking people out by making it appear they are educated by using all of these big fancy scientific words but they really have no evidence to back up them big fancy scientific words.It is bluffing and I'm calling their bluff. No matter what kind of evidence you could provide in evolution science it will not prove you correct because it will all prove me correct that you all are just documenting normal variation amongst a population and telling people life evolves based on it.

This is what you're trying to get people to believe "If,then,animals and plants do vary,let it be ever so slightly,why should not variations or individual differences,which are in anyway beneficial,be preserved and accumulated through natural selection?" - Charles Darwin quote in The Origin of Species. Except you have no credibile mechanism to demonstrate this is true and expect people to assume it can happen because it is reasonable to believe.

[Mazzy]

It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone.

Really? then it's good to read some proper research to see whether it really does back your opinion.

Absolutely! However, unlike you, hughfarey, I actually understand what I'm reading.

The Myth of 1%. Well, I think we've already covered that. It's a popular press generalisation based on some research into small pieces of DNA which are sufficiently similar to be directly comparable. It is not possible to make such an arbitrary statement without stating very specifically what 1% actually means. As you so pertinently quote: “There isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms” and you're obviously correct.

Agreed. However the article states you can't credibly offer a comparison. Don't forget the point the article makes!

"Could researchers combine all of what’s known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? “I don’t think there’s any way to calculate a number,” says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”

However, I think you then went too far in saying that because this particular generalisation was not a demonstrable fact, that therefore there was no data to suggest that human, chimp and chicken DNA was more or less similar, thus providing evidence for independent creation. You go so far as to reference the Science Magazine article "The Myth of 1%" without apparently noticing that it refers to research into another way of comparing DNA, replacing 1% with "a whopping 6.4%". 'Whopping', seems to me a little over the top. The authors show that by their method, humans are 93.4% similar to chimps, which hardly supports your stated view that human, chimp and chicken DNA is equally different. Furthermore, your reference to the scientific literature at all hardly supports your other contention that it's all guesswork.

You suggested previously, that I have been vaguely abusive to you. Well I tell you what hughfarey, I haven't negated to notice anything in that article at all. I haven't gone too far at all. Perhaps it is you that should read it again and google the terms you don't understand....Let me draw your attention to this below to clarify what the paper is telling us....

"Hahn and co-workers reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%, concluding that “gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated.”

Do you know what the above, in bold, and the paragraph it is in, actually means? It is referring to gene copy numbers ONLY,where a chromosome now has two copies of this section of DNA, rather than one. The authors were not so silly as to say that there is no way a credible comparison can be made and then offer a comparisative percentage as you appear to have erroneously read into the article.

You then refer to another article that examines an even tinier proportion of an animal's DNA, the "male-specific region of the Y chromosome" (not even the whole chromosome, note), and compared that of humans and chimps in various ways. First they found this:

"Given that primate sex chromosomes are hundreds of millions of years old, theories of decelerating decay would predict that the chimpanzee and human MSYs should have changed little since the separation of these two lineages just six million years ago. To test this prediction, we aligned and compared the nucleotide sequences of the chimpanzee and human MSYs. As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)."

However, then, to their surprise, they found this:

"Surprisingly, however, > 30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. In this respect the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where < 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks an homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa."

You do understand, don't you? That when an evolutionary scientist states they are surprised. It actually means their prediction is WRONG? None the less they never let a few facts and failed predictions get in the way of good story telling.

And they conclude this:

"In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in, respectively, the chimpanzee and human lineages is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units. By contrast, in the remainder of the genome, comparison of chimpanzee draft sequence with human reference sequence suggests that the gene content of the two species differs by < 1%. Indeed, at six million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."

Now, re-reading that, can you honestly say that it leads to this conclusion (yours): "There is ample evidence to support the claim that the chimp and human genomes are not similar at all as is suggested in the OP"? If so, then I can only respectfully disagree. So, of course, does John Hawkes, in his article beginning "Holy Crap!" He too is well aware that human and chimp DNA is overwhelmingly similar except in some small, but important and interesting instances.

Respectfully, I can hardly believe you are back on here using this article to try to challenge me. What remains of the genome to suggest a 1% comparison is not much at all. IOW, the article aligns with what I and others here have been saying. The chimp genome is only similar to mankind when you ignore the plethora of differences.

Here are a few more snips from that paper....

A third sequence class in the human MSY euchromatin – the X-transposed sequences – has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY.....

The chimpanzee ampliconic regions are particularly massive (44% larger than in human.....)

In fact, the evolution of ampliconic sequences has outpaced that of X-degenerate sequences, and to such a degree that the ampliconic architecture of the common ancestor’s MSY may be difficult to reconstruct even after an outgroup MSY has been sequenced.

Do you know what an outgroup is and why an out group is needed, and on what basis an out group is chosen as in the comment above?

Now here is a bit of guesswork from that same paper...

Despite the chimpanzee MSY’s elaborate structure, its gene repertoire is considerably smaller and simpler than that of the human MSY (Table 1) as a result of gene loss in the chimpanzee lineage and gene acquisition in the human lineage. For example, we previously discovered that the chimpanzee X-degenerate regions had lost four of 16 genes through inactivating mutations, while the human X-degenerate regions had not lost any genes since the time of the last common ancestor.

So here above we have scientists clearly stating a loss of 4 of 16 genes (25%). Now for the story telling.... The human x-degenerate regions have not lost any since the last common ancestor. Do you suppose that these scientists have healthy DNA from the human/chimp common ancestor so they can make such a claim? They don't even know what that was. Do you know where an outgroup may come in here?

So I maintain the OP hits the nail on the head. NO, we are not 99% the same as chimps and neither is our dna.

[hughfarey]

I don't think either of us will get much further along these lines, so if you don't mind this will be my last post on the subject. I understand exactly what your scientists are saying, and exactly where, and by how much, they demonstrate the similarities and differences between chimp and human DNA. They are all agreed that human DNA is more closely similar to chimp DNA that to any other species, and by quite a long way. Your selective extraction of those few instances where human and chimp DNA differ, to the extent that you can claim that "scientists" have demonstrated that there is no greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and chickens, is not born out by the either the paper nor the articles you advised me to read. Your 'victory claim', that "we are not 99% the same as chimps and neither is our dna" has never been disputed - indeed, I called it a 'crude comparison' in the very first response to the OP. What is disputed is your claim that human, chimp and chicken DNA is more or less similar, and that all the derivations from experimental results to the contrary are guesswork.

[Mazzy]

I don't think either of us will get much further along these lines, so if you don't mind this will be my last post on the subject. I understand exactly what your scientists are saying, and exactly where, and by how much, they demonstrate the similarities and differences between chimp and human DNA. They are all agreed that human DNA is more closely similar to chimp DNA that to any other species, and by quite a long way. Your selective extraction of those few instances where human and chimp DNA differ, to the extent that you can claim that "scientists" have demonstrated that there is no greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and chickens, is not born out by the either the paper nor the articles you advised me to read. Your 'victory claim', that "we are not 99% the same as chimps and neither is our dna" has never been disputed - indeed, I called it a 'crude comparison' in the very first response to the OP. What is disputed is your claim that human, chimp and chicken DNA is more or less similar, and that all the derivations from experimental results to the contrary are guesswork.

I apologize for my comment saying you do not understand research. I was going to edit that out this morning, but you have already replied. I do get frustrated when you misquote me.

However, you were wrong a couple of times and did not understand what you were reading. For example, you said "The authors show that by their method, humans are 93.4% similar to chimps, which hardly supports your stated view that human, chimp and chicken DNA is equally different. Furthermore, your reference to the scientific literature at all hardly supports your other contention that it's all guesswork." That comment was a reflection of misreading the article as it was only talking about copy numbers, a small part of a holistic comparison.

I have not selected just a few instances at all. Mankind had to be closer to one species than others. If dna has anything to do at all with physical characteristics a primate would be expected to be closer to mankind than a banana.

My comments, John Hawks comments and the published article on the Y chromosome, was just another example of differences. Again what I called guesswork, in my last post was scientists thinking they knew what the alleged common ancestors dna was like.

However, again depending on what one counts we could be closer to an orangutan or a gorilla.....

"Another surprising result is that part of the gorilla genome is at odds with the current structure of the great ape evolutionary tree.
For example, instead of gorillas being most similar to chimps and then humans in that portion of the DNA, the branches flip to humans being most similar to gorillas and then chimps.
(See "Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps" [2009]."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-science/

[Mazzy]

What is disputed is your claim that human, chimp and chicken DNA is more or less similar, and that all the derivations from experimental results to the contrary are guesswork.

This part of your reply deserves a post of its' own.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said a chimp and chicken dna is more or less similar. John Hawks made a comparison re genetic distance based on the assumption of evolution and the HUGE differences between a chimp and human dna.

Please stop misquoting me. It is frustrating and a reflection of a posters lack of credibility.

[Kurieuo]

Cornelius Hunter once posted on this board in the past, was great to have when he did. In any case, just came across an article he recently wrote on his blog: But, But, But … We’re 98% Similar to the Chimp! Not.

The fact is that the sample for this 99% claim of similarity, such is in fact based upon about 2% of complete DNA -- that which many believed to be "encoding" ape DNA to the exclusion of "non-coding" or "junk" DNA. So, then, the 99% sometimes said to be 98%, sometimes said to be 97%, such a claim is really a popularist evolutionary-supporting myth.

Now as time goes on and we discover more about our DNA, what is considered "non-coding" or "junk" DNA, like "vestigal organs" before it, are being found to have important purposes -- with non-encoding DNA particularly in gene expression and activity. How much?

• The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription,
  transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign
  biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... e11247.pdf)

Yes, a whole whopping 80%! If this is true, than surely that high 99% similarity figure needs revising? Going back to a scientific study that Cornelius comments on above re: transposable elements:

• Long considered as junk DNA, transposable elements are now recognized as influencing the expression of genes. … the extent of this regulation and how it is harnessed were so far unknown. EPFL scientists have now taken the first extensive look at a family of ~350 human proteins, showing that they establish a complex interplay with transposable elements … KZFPs can convert transposable elements in exquisitely fine-tuned regulatory platforms that influence the expression of genes, which likely takes place at all stages of development and in all human tissues. … It is a highly combinatorial and versatile system … As a field, epigenetics has come into prominence in recent years, revealing a previously unimagined complexity and elegance in genetics

Such is quite difficult for me to swallow in evolutionary terms. Of course, throw God into the picture (if you lean towards Theistic Evolution) and odds don't really matter, anything is really possible and evolution happened. God allows those Christians comforted by the laws of physics being finely tuned to guide all outcomes and the like to remain happy. Yet for me, such evidences more God's progressive and direct involvement in the creation of life.

I don't want to re-work the wheel with CH's blog article here, so I'd encourage a fuller reading of it: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.au/2017 ... chimp.html

[Mallz]

I apologize for my comment saying you do not understand research.

So far, Mazzy, this is one of the only things I disagree with you posting. He doesn't understand the research, how to read research papers and relate them to their field (in at least biology and genetics). That is why I spoke up to begin with because not only was it so painfully obvious (especially in his brief responses to what I said) but is frankly insulting that he spouts out incoherent phrases thinking he makes sense. It's being a pseudo-intellectual and that is not to be respected.

[Mazzy]

Such is quite difficult for me to swallow in evolutionary terms. Of course, throw God into the picture (if you lean towards Theistic Evolution) and odds don't really matter, anything is really possible and evolution happened. God allows those Christians comforted by the laws of physics being finely tuned to guide all outcomes and the like to remain happy. Yet for me, such evidences more God's progressive and direct involvement in the creation of life.

I don't want to re-work the wheel with CH's blog article here, so I'd encourage a fuller reading of it: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.au/2017 ... chimp.html

Progressive creationism is interesting. I am not a young earth creationist although they make some good points. The sudden appearance of various forms of life in the geological column doesn't bother me. Gould and Eldridge tried to explain the fossil evidence in terms of Punctuated Equilibrium. I remember reading some genetic evidence for PE as well, "Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium. Phylogenetic trees reveal traces of rapid evolution at speciation, a new study says, By Melissa Lee Phillips, 2006)

The point being the research into deep ancestry uses those silly algorithms as evidence. No one knows what any organisms genes looked like millions of years ago, the mating behaviors, etc etc. Any degraded dna they scrape up from a dino etc is reconstituted according to a belief. To me that deep ancestry stuff only demonstrates that people like to play with algorithms to find results that support their view, make headlines or ensure more grant money.

[hughfarey]

Cornelius Hunter once posted on this board in the past, was great to have when he did. In any case, just came across an article he recently wrote on his blog: But, But, But … We’re 98% Similar to the Chimp! Not.

In keeping with his anti-evolutionist persuasion, Hunter is as selective in his references as many of his peers in this thread. I hope somebody will agree that one of the criteria to be able to "understand the research, how to read research papers and relate them to their field" is to actually read the papers referred to, in this case "KRAB zinc-finger proteins contribute to the evolution of gene regulatory networks" by Michael Imbeault et al. (Nature Research Letter 21683). This is a wholly evolutionary study of the relationships between a tiny fragment of the human genome to similar tiny fragments in other organisms. It is beautifully illustrated, and shows the relationships, which I consider evolutionary but which others may consider merely coincidental, very clearly.

I think creationists are flogging a dead horse in continuing to attack the "99% similarity" thing. Although much of the non-coding DNA may not have been comprehensively studied yet, every new experiment investigating it continues to demonstrate relationships which conform to evolutionary hypotheses, and none - not even the chicken mtDNA - refute it.

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription,
transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign
biochemical functions for 80% of the genome.

Long considered as junk DNA, transposable elements are now recognized as influencing the expression of genes. … the extent of this regulation and how it is harnessed were so far unknown. EPFL scientists have now taken the first extensive look at a family of ~350 human proteins, showing that they establish a complex interplay with transposable elements … KZFPs can convert transposable elements in exquisitely fine-tuned regulatory platforms that influence the expression of genes, which likely takes place at all stages of development and in all human tissues. … It is a highly combinatorial and versatile system … As a field, epigenetics has come into prominence in recent years, revealing a previously unimagined complexity and elegance in genetics.

Yes, exactly. But what is the point of this comment? Not that "99% of the genome remains completely unknown", but that "the more we study it, the better it illustrates an evolutionary scenario." I think Hunter is desperately trying to have his cake (We know nothing about most DNA so no evolutionary relationships can be drawn from it) and eat it (Evolutionists are wrong to call most DNA junk because we're finding out more and more about it), but he is most of all misleading in his conclusion: "Finally, all of this contradicts the expected common descent pattern." As the paper he mentions explains in huge detail, it confirms evolutionary relationships; it does not contradict them. The surprise to which he refers is not that there is no evolutionary pattern, but that the relationships were much more confirmatory of it than had been anticipated.

Of course, my fellows on this thread will dismiss this as my inability to read a research paper, or as Imbeault et al's usage of "silly algorithms". This kind of rhetoric is surely the last refuge of the defeated argument. If they are to sustain any credibility, they'll have to do better than that...

[Kurieuo]

Evidently, our DNA is not 99% the same as chimps, that is, if 80% of our genome has purpose, where only about 2% was compared because it was previously thought the other 98% was non-coding junk.

Further, I never stated that evolution couldn't account for such features in the article, but to say such "confirms" and "illustrates" evolution is quite a leap. One must surely fully assuming an evolutionary accounting, rather than looking at what the evidence favours more.

For example, to use an unrelated example, if we had a dozen independent species evolve the same features we could invoke "convergent evolution" and use this and that to try explain how such happened via evolution. To say being able to give such an explanation "confirms" and "illustrates" evolution begs the question. Rather, an impartial observer would I believe say such is better explained by a more purposeful creation.

[hughfarey]

Evidently, our DNA is not 99% the same as chimps, that is, if 80% of our genome has purpose, where only about 2% was compared because it was previously thought the other 98% was non-coding junk.

Not evidently. As we compare more and more of the "junk" DNA, we find that it too is very similar in humans and chimps. But I don't think we need to pursue the exact proportions, or the various methods of achieving them. It is evident that our DNA is much more like that of chimpanzees than of any other species, and I think that's enough.

Further, I never stated that evolution couldn't account for such features in the article, but to say such "confirms" and "illustrates" evolution is quite a leap. One must surely fully assuming an evolutionary accounting, rather than looking at what the evidence favours more.

You're right. Philip has said, quite truly, that the separate creation of similar species could easily entail their having similar DNA, such that an illusion of common decent could be derived from an examination of it, even if there wasn't any. My own answer when asked for evidence of evolution does not depend on these similarities. Perhaps I should have said "supports" rather than "confirms".

Rather, an impartial observer would I believe say such is better explained by a more purposeful creation.

The question of the purpose of the universe goes far deeper than the data supporting convergent evolution. I don't think "purposeful creation" and "evolution" are necessarily incompatible. It is "spontaneous creation" and "evolution" which are incompatible, of which, in my opinion, an impartial observer would think the latter a more coherent explanation for the data.

[PaulSacramento]

Seems that the percentage is basically from 96% to 99%, depending on how the evidence is interpreted.
Of course that equals around 40 million differences.

Seems like the "building blocks" of this planet are shared by the inhabitants of this planet to one degree or another:

http://www.businessinsider.com/comparin ... o-humans-3

NOTE:
Even bananas surprisingly still share about 60% of the same DNA as humans!

[hughfarey]

Even bananas surprisingly still share about 60% of the same DNA as humans!

It's not really surprising, once you consider that the most complex part of a living organism is not really the interaction between the cells, staggeringly complex though that is, but the intracellular chemistry, which is much the same for all living things.