No, we don't "move the figures around to fit the belief system". If you actually read the peer-reviewed literature you would have known that geneticists had already said that the human-chimp difference would be higher. This is because the former figure of 98% difference was only based on base-to-base comparison. In other words, it was based on comparing the stretches of DNA that were of similar length. The 95% figure is not due to unknown functions of junk DNA, that has nothing to do with the figure. The 95% figure is arrived at by also looking at insertions and deletions in the genome, something that was hard to do first. The figure of base-to-base comparisons is still the same as it was before, 98%. I don't know much of the human-to-human differences and what those are based on, but my suspicion is that the story is similar to the chimpanzee-to-human comparison, namely the inclusion of indel mutations in the analysis.
Now, I kinow creationist organisations never explain the exact differences between the different figures and why they arrive at the conclusions they arrive at. Otherwise you wouldn't make the basic errors you make above. Why is that, do you think? Why don't they fully explain the issue, instead of just showing half of it?
Also, you now fully ignore the point where you started. If chimps would have 100% the same DNA as humans they would be humans. They would look as similar to us as monozygotic twins to each other, do you deny this? They would be able to procreate with us.
Unfortunately, you are again wrong. The conclusion of common ancestry has never been decided on the basis of just the percentage difference. The conclusion is based on the pattern that is seen when you set out the similarities and differences in the genetic sequence between different species. This is an important distinction that you need to understand. The absolute figure doesn't tell us much, the pattern we get when comparing the different sequences does.
Again, it is not the similarity in itself. It is the pattern that we get when we analyze what the similarities and differences are exactly. The difference, as they say, is in the details.
This statement in itself is false. We do not eat the same food, we do not live in the same climate. But again, this is irrelevant. Because for what you say to be true the pattern we see when analyzing the similarities and differences would not have to fall in a nested hierarchy of groups within groups. That they do leads us to the conclusion of common ancestry.
Yes, but that is not the point. And I'm stating this multiple times, because it is important. If what you say would be the case, there would still be no specific reason for the simiraties to form a nested hierarchy. You keep glossing over this in this post, which means you either do not understand what a nested hierarchy is or what it's signficance is. Which of the two is it? Or is it both?
You are under the impression that geneticists have looked at the similarities, said "golly, that looks pretty similar" and called it a day. This is not the case. If the similarities would have been much closer but would not have fallen in a nested hierarchy, the conclusion of common ancestry would not have been supported by the evidence. Again, it is not the amount of similarity in itself that leads to the conclusion. It is the pattern that we see when categorizing the similarities and differences. This is important and you haven't addressed that at all in this post.
Upvote
0
