That has nothing to do with the point I made. You lot can't have your eggs in different baskets. Either all life that evolves independently is hypothesisied to be genetically similar or it isn't. Are you too scared to go with one or the other????<quoted text>
Sorry, I had to stop your idiocy here. The last claim is a nonsequitur and needs some evidence to support it. Sharing of DNA at a single cell level, which can still be observed today, is totally different from how DNA is passed down in more complex life.
Yes, Indeed you are evading and skirting, because if multiple variations of life that is meant to have evolved, is genetically similar, the argument for comparative genomics looses steam.
I can't see any research here above. Indeed any research you present will soon be shown to cherry pick similarity out of a plethora of differences thrown into an algorithmic magic blender, you call data. eg. The myth of 1%,Wrong, the differences between humans and chimps has been quantified. Do you want links? I am more than happy to provide them. I am sure that you have seen some of them before. Where do you think that we get the "98% similarity between humans and chimps" from?
"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of humanness versus chimpness.There isnt one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms, Gagneux adds."
Are you now suggesting this evolutionary researcher above does not know what he is talking about, but you do????????