ReMine's argument rendered moot

SLP,It occurred to me whilst I was arguing Fred Williams, that the difference between Chimps & Humans is 1-3% (I thought only 1%). If there are, for the purposes of this calculation 30,000 genes. Then 1667 changes constitutes 5.56% of genes affected. Easily enough to make the difference.Of course, this is simplistic, some mutations may affect a gene more than once. Some mutations may affect single nucleotides (still potentially changing the genes message). Most importantly, chimps have 24 chromosome pairs, so at some point an entire chromosome was duplicated.But genetic theory maintains most mutations are neutral, or there abouts. So, is 1667 the number of beneficial mutations required after MANY more neutral mutations?Going slightly off topic. I read that there is an estimated 100,000 proteins in humans. But only 30-40,000 genes. Do genes simply code for more than one protein. Or, are many genes involved in coding "little bits" of lots of proteins, or a combination of the two?I'm looking to expand my knowledge of this topic, but I need to get some other books out of the way first.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

SLP,
Thanks for the clarifications. I have heard of ReMines book, & am aware of the debate, but consider my knowledge too sketchy to add significantly to the argument. I would only score an own goal.Certainly phenotype shouldn't be reduced to mean "appearance", but isn't appearance valid? I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, isn't upright posture relevent to survival? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.