Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

It isn't that simple either.As has been discussed somewhere here before there are a number of different things to measure.I think the number being tossed about here is the number of base pair differences. However, one might also measure the number of whole genes that are not the same. Or one could take only the base pair differences in known coding sequences (leaving out the 'junk').One could then argue that homologuous substitutions (do I have that right? ) don't matter. If the gene is different but codes for the same thing who cares. And so on and so forth.Let's face it what the heckenhiemer does it matter if it is 94 % or 99 %? One way of looking at is we are very, very similar to chimps at the genetic level.Then there would be another way which will arise as we know more. A 1% difference in the right place may count a LOT! For example we may find that sequences controlling brain or language are only 89% similar.Of course, the site referenced forgot to note that even with millions of differences it becomes kind of hard to suggest that evolution can't get from a chimp like sequence (not even counting that they have been diverging some too) to our when it only takes a few changes per generation.

It appears, Carico, that you haven't read anything that you have been given as explanations. Since you are responding to the posts I presume you must have glanced at them.The concept is really not all that hard. It has been worded in pretty plain English several times. It appears that English is your first language.Maybe it is just that even this rather simple concept is too much for you. On that basis I have to say you are wasting your time here. This is not a remedial reading class or somewhere for someone who has problems with the more simple concepts.I think there are a number of die hard YEC's here. I think some of them understand the concepts (even though they may not agree with them). Perhaps you can engage them and they can use words you can understand.