[alexander_busek]

The parroting of this claim even today, with confirmation bias, which is not even from 40 years ago and is often unqualified, is what the article counters, and explains.

Incorrect!

The article, rather, makes a "big deal" of the fact that any comparison expressed as a more-or-less exact percentage, that any quantification of a "genetic resemblance" expressed as a decimal-pointed figure, must be taken with a grain of salt / will, by its very nature, be misleading, if taken too literally.

The article then proceeds to attempt to "make hay" and discredit the whole concept of evolution based upon that Straw Man Fallacy.

Regards,

[Elsie]

Change DNA and you get a different creature?

[daniel1212]

The article, rather, makes a "big deal" of the fact that any comparison expressed as a more-or-less exact percentage, that any quantification of a "genetic resemblance" expressed as a decimal-pointed figure, must be taken with a grain of salt / will, by its very nature, be misleading, if taken too literally.

You mean the parroted 99 percent similarity between the DNA of humans while "other methodologies have yielded numbers ranging from the mid-80s to 90s" is not misleading, as used to promote the idea that man just evolved into a higher order of primate, which use "ignores there is clearly more going on than such figures can account for?"