"By the way .... it 's not 99 % , as the article states , it 's 94 %"
"Actually , it depends on what you are comparing and how you want to characterize certain phenomena . If you are comparing only coding sequence , then it is on the order of 99 % . If you are comparing coding and noncoding sequence , it is on the order of 97-98 % . If you consider indels not as one-time events that incorporate large-scale changes of sequence , but count the individual nuclotides within each indel , then it comes out to 94-95 % . What the creationists never seem to understand is that if you are goiong to adopt the comparison method in which indels are treated as colelctions of nuclotide changes rather than one-time events , ALL % similarities between ALL taxa will be lowered somewhat . This means that when they predictably trot out some bastardized version of Haldane 's dilemma claiming that the nmew lower similarity is even harder for evolution to explain , they do not realize how devastating this method of accounting is for creationism genetics . For now the 'increased dissimilarity ' has to be accounted for in the very short time frames allowed by biblically-constrained science - about 4,500 years instead of the hundreds of thousands or millions of years during which accumulations of DNA change can be accounted for . So desperate are they ro 'diss Darwin ' that they do n't recognize the problems their arguments cause for their own ideology . That or they do n't care ."
"'s not 99 % , as the article states , it 's 94 %"
"it depends on what you are comparing and how you want to characterize certain phenomena ."