My response to most of these is "So what?" It's more nitpicking. AiG is like a jackdaw leaping with alacrity on any shiny object that catches its eye. No real attempt is made to fit any elements together reasonably. I get the impression they are just disagreeing here for the sake of disagreeing, like (one can never have too many similes) a sullen toddler.
Regarding what scientists' think, we aren't fixated on the numbers because they don't tell the whole story--not even close. Scientists are interested in what genes are the same but more importantly in what genes are different. Scientists are interested in the types of chromosome remodelling (which should be illegal according to most young earth creationists) that have occurred and what effects these might have. We are interested in which transposable elements were favored in which species, and when these stopped propagating. AiG is just interested in the sparkly numbers.
The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 6877%.
No source, sadly, but that's par for the course. Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%'s, depending on what you are looking at.
In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 1020% dissimilarity.
I'm amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred. Besides my amusement, my reaction is "So what?" and a note of the arbitrary percentages (gee, it would be nice if they explained how they are calculating this--looks like they want everything lined up exactly in the same order in order to acknowledge it's identical).
To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome puzzle were put together properly.
Baloney. In one method this was used as an aid, but stringent guidelines were followed to make sure errors did not occur. Later attempts did not use this.
Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that vestigial organs are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:
Oh, if only that were the evolutionists' position! But slay that straw man!
[Regarding what scientists’ think, we aren’t fixated on the numbers because they don’t tell the whole story—not even close.]
Boy howdy I’ll say- mutation rate catastrophe” no need to fixate on the numbers such as deleterious mutations outnumbering ‘benificial’ (used in the loosest of terms as I know very loose terms are needed for evolution) and creating a quagmire that end up negating the few ‘benificial’ mutations to the point of species collapse. No need to go there. Better to simply propose that nature ‘overcame the hurdles’ by being ‘robust’ enough to transcend these obvious limitations to the theory of evolution. Mutational load calculations were such a problem that Darwinists tried to tackle the problem, yet in the end had to declare ‘a ‘robust system’ must have been inplace to overcome the hurdles.’ Let’s also not forget that species have an amazing ability to correct errors over time- couple this with the deleterious mutational build-up, and we’ve got us one life-sn\uffing proposition. Being that mutational ‘progress’ is not a ‘dirtected event’ and not guided, the rates of ‘benificial’ to deleterious mutations would have reamined a constant. Besides, all this is is an attempt at ‘explaining’ a tree when a forrest of improbabilities surround that one sapling. The idea of slow accumulating (or even faster accumulating (I know you folk like to assume conditions could have sped up mutations) mutations couldjoin hands and ‘evolve’ new organs and move a species into another KIND altogether is a swell proposition, but the biological evidence is so vastly against such a proposal as to make it an irrational wish I’m afraid.
To think that evolution saved every blessed hail Mary in the process, until finally, all the perfect combinations formed to create new organs is unsupported in the evidence and nothing but a hopeful assumption built upon the idea that problems along the way only amount to a response worthy of ‘so what’. Numbers numbers, who needs em? It’s ‘just argumentative’ and ‘nitpicking’- Recombination has never been shown to prevent runaway mutational problems, but at best, only to delay the inevitable in a few cases.
[Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%’s, depending on what you are looking at.]
Ah, and the disimilarities are how large again? Billions? Numbers, numbers- who needs em?
[I’m amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred.]
If this amuses you then you obviously aren’t well versed in what creation/id scientists beleive.
[Besides my amusement, my reaction is “So what?”]
So what? We’re told that we’re ‘up to’ 98% similiar to chimps and ‘therefore must be related’ because of the powerful evidence of similarities, yet when the equally powerful disimiliarities are pointed out that seperate us from lower species, the reaction is ‘so what’? Wow!
[Oh, if only that were the evolutionists’ position!]
Oh but it was (and continues to be in most less reputable evo-science writings and publications) Straw-man indeed.