Note my response in post #31 above.
The results you get depend on the assumptions & methods you used.
If you count every difference, no matter how small or inconsequential, as a "no match" then you'll get a lower number.
But if you focus instead on just "coding DNA" and count close similarities as a "match", then the number is much higher.
What's important is using the same assumptions to count up "average rate of change" as you do to measure the differences among various species DNA.
winslow: "80% is nowhere near close enough"
80% is plenty close-enough if you use the same methodology to measure "average rate of change" as you do to count up differences among various species.
winslow: "(and let’s face it there are huge problems with the accuracy of dating methods)"
Potentially a valid critique if there were only one or two dating methods, but in fact there are dozens and when several methods agree for the same site, that becomes pretty strong evidence.
And when thousands upon thousands of different sites produce answers which correspond to evolutionary timelines, it's hard to legitimately say they're all wrong.
winslow: "I’m sure this will have little effect in causing most evolutionists to doubt their faith, although it should."
It's not a matter of "faith", it's the evidence: billions upon billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of different species discovered over the past ~150 years.
And every one, without confirmed exception, supports basic evolution theory.
winslow: "For me the biggest problems for them by far are the fossil record not showing what it should if evolution was true..."
The fossil record, including many "transitional forms" shows exactly what it should to confirm evolution theory.
winslow: "I’ve watched a few creation/evolution debates on the fossil record and the evolutionists never seem to make a convincing case at all."
I watched Ham vs. Nye and Ham admitted there is no scientific evidence which could convince him his understanding of the Bible is wrong.
Nye seemed clueless as to what issues really concerned the religious followers of Ken Ham.
He seemed to speak past them rather than to them.
Just a couple of quick observations. Many transitional fossils do not show huge leaps and certainly do not prove that fish became land amphibians or that mammals became whales. There are known issues with the timelines such as evidence that there were already creatures crawling around on the land when tiktaalik and other fishopods were around. Even in the mammal to whale transitional fossils, there are huge problems. Have you ever watched Dr Marc Surtees critique of this? Sorry for the rushed reply, I have some classes to attend.