Irrelevant.
When creationists claim 'X-% difference is too much for evolution to account for', they do not specify that they are referring to adaptive/relevant mutation, just the total percentage.
Then your beef is with your fellow creationsts.
When creationists specify that some number of beneficial mutations is too few (this is the tactic that people like ReMine and Sanford use), their arguments fail as well.
For such arguments are always based on a simple-minded belief that there must be some huge number of such mutations to account for any kind of evolution. Especially for human evolution, because we are so special.
Creationists will also often start out trying to argue about the beneficial mutation issue, but then they conflate those mutations with all mutations.
Because they don't know any better. Or maybe they do, but are more concerned with winning that with being honest.
Here, for example, is Jeff Tomkins of the ICR, from 2013:
Jeffrey Tomkins, Institute for Creation Research
Proposal
A preliminary study was performed by Tomkins comparing 40,000 chimpanzee genomic sequences against the human genome which indicated that reported levels of human-chimp DNA similarity were significantly lower than commonly reported. The present, follow-up study was then completed in which chimp chromosomes were sliced into new individual query files of varying string lengths and queried against their human chromosome homolog. This allowed for comparisons to be optimized irrespective of the linear order of genes and sequence features. The definition of similarity was the amount (percent) of optimally aligned chimp DNA. For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal alignment conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
He was once a competent geneticist, but then he went to work a creationist propaganda mill. Note that his SOLE argument is re: the % figures.
And he is a "professional."
I will not mention that the means by which he came to these lower-than usual numbers (which he was initially inspired to do when Todd Wood reported a 90-ish% similarity at a creationist meeting using a non-buggy version of BLASTn) was designed TO GET lower numbers to bolster his claim. I will not mention that he wrote a script that told a buggy version of BLASTn to look for and compare bits of DNA 10 nucleotides in length, and to consider a single base difference to return a similarity of 0 (as he explained in his full publication on this through ICR). I will not bother to mention that Tomkins later, unable to keep denying that he had used a buggy version of BLASTn, tried to rescue his claim, still using small segments of DNA rather than just a straight site-by-site analysis, and came up with 88%. I will also not mention that even 88% was considered by Tomkins to be 'too little' to support evolution, with no mention on adaptation or fitness or beneficial mutations.
I will definitely not mention that he refuses to run his comparisons on pairs of taxa that creationists claim are descendants of a created kind, for what should be obvious reasons.
