Steve Peterson wrote:

Gentlemen,

I am going to snip this conversation, but I have had a realization that I
think applies. Fletis, you are looking at this like a criminal trial,
requiring proof beyond a shadow of doubt. John, and other scientists,
including me, use a standard more like a civil trial, requiring proof based
on the preponderance of the evidence. But that is how science works. Major
theories of science are just not proven beyond a shadow of doubt, or there
wouldn't still be investigation continuing.

John, I have a question that may supply some context to the data that humans
and chimpanzees are about 98% identical, by DNA analysis. We know there are
significant differences between groups of humans, like short bushmen and
tall watusis, eskimos and Australian aborigines, and the highly varied US
population. How much variance is there in the human genome?

By the same method (remember there are several ways of measuring
similarity), the two most different humans are about 99.9% identical.