[BroJoeK]

fishtank: "Just ask yourself: DIRTAON ???"

I read the article, it's neither long nor complicated.
Possibly the money quote is:

"Dr. Buggs reported on his website that 'the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%' and '4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.' 4
Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%!
This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible."

Here's your basic problem: DNA comparisons can be performed in any number of different ways, and the results you get will depend on what assumptions and methodology you used.
Many studies compare "coding DNA" only and allow for similarities rather than demanding exact matches -- that's how you get numbers in the high 90%s.

This particular study seems intended to maximize DNA dissimilarities by looking at "non-coding DNA" and counting every difference, no matter how small, as a "no match".
So it really tells us nothing new and disproves nothing previously discovered.
It only says that if you change your assumptions and methodology, you'll get different results.

Who knew?

[BrandtMichaels]

But evos first assume evolution too! What really shows you’re bias is ignoring all the recent DNA studies which show devolution of DNA. Micro changes are basically encoded within the DNA BUT micro have only been assumed to lead to macro nothing more...