Determining similarity statistics between the human and chimp genome

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Frank

1.From where did you get the figure of 70%?

I’ve seen it many times. Here is one place, for example.[quote=“Frank, post:12, topic:34955”]
Recent research shows the difference to be ‘about’ 85% and this would equate to about 450 Million differences.
[/quote]
No, recent research really doesn’t show that; this is one of those completely wrong claims that was being discussed. The best estimate of the differences between the genomes hasn’t changed since the chimpanzee genome paper: 1.2% or so different where they share common DNA, plus another 1.5% of unique DNA in each genome.

@Frank

From where did you get that quotation? Is it actually a quotation from a YEC book/article/scientist?

I’ve seen it many times in online discussions. Here is one place of many you can find it.

@Frank

Richard Dawkins, for example, had some serious back -pedalling and face saving to do on this issue because he was of the belief as were many mainstream scientists that DNA contained about 98% “junk.”

I’m not aware of any scientist who ever claimed that 98% of the genome was junk. (And I’m not interested in what Dawkins thought or thinks.) The original guess was that about 20% of the genome was likely to be functional. The current best estimate is something like 10% to 15% functional.[quote=“Frank, post:12, topic:34955”]
I believe I’m corrrect in saying that Francis Collins of Biologos who was in charge of the Human Genome Project scotched that erroneous notion.
[/quote]
Didn’t happen. The ENCODE project (which Francis wasn’t directly involved in, if I recall correctly – but my memory is fuzzy on this point) showed that 80% of the genome was biochemically active. The best estimate from that project was that ~11% actually affected the well-being of the organism, i.e. had a function.

@Frank

Yes, indeed and this is a circular argument oft times used by Darwinists who needs must subscribe to the notion of uniformitarianism and with it billions of years lest evolutionary naturalism fall flat.

I’m afraid this does indeed come under the heading of “not having a clue” responses. All absolute dates of rocks ultimately come from radiometric dating.