Whatever, they've already done a four-fold sequence of the chimp genome, they announced it on Dec 10th 2003. Analysis from comparisons with human genes is expected March/April 2004.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say
they should in time be able to determine the different kinds of creatures by the genes, chromosome bundles, etc...
. Surely we don't need genome sequencing to tell us that a whale and a bat are different species? As for using this sort of data to tell the difference between very closely related organisms, it began quite some time ago and is a standard technique used on a daily basis in all sorts of areas. The technique used is PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and little "starter" bits of DNA (primers) which will only recognise a chosen target are used to amplify the piece of DNA in question. So, for example, if I want to know if my fungus on my potato is a
Colletotrichum coccodes or another species of
Colletotrichum, I use primers which will only recognise
Colletotrichum coccodes and not the others. If I get an amplified fragment of DNA and its the predicted size then I know my fungus is
Colletotrichum coccodes, if I don't get the product, I know it isn't.
This sort of technique is only possible because of the amount of gene sequencing that's been done over the last decade or so since PCR was developed. From this it's possible to pick a gene and compare the sequence of it to the sequence of the same gene in other species. What's interesting is that you can align these sequences so that the second sequence has only one difference from the starting sequence, the third has two differences from the starting sequence (the original difference and another one), the fourth has three differences (the first two and another one) and so on. From that you can see a gradual progression and accumulation of changes in the DNA sequence for a particular gene and you can also see what order it happened in. Funnily enough, the order that appears is the same as the proposed evolutionary route.
Back to the chimps. Now, what you seem to be saying now is that evolution happened, but God made the changes in the DNA sequences, yet previously you seemed to assert that there was no way that the DNA could change enough to give rise to different species or "kinds". If God took the DNA of the chimp and changed it to make humans, then surely, by definition that would mean that one of your "kinds" arose from another of your "kinds". Doesn't that go against everything you've argued before? Surely the transition from chimp to human qualifies as macro-evolution, whether by natural selection or the Hand of God? Aren't you yet again, contradicting yourself?
Evolution itself doesn't claim that humans came from chimps, but that they shared a common ancestor, the branch of the tree split before chimps were chimps and after the split we evolved along different lines. And yet, even along those different lines, the DNA of chimp and humans has on the surface a 98.8% similarity. It remains to be seen where the similarities and differences lie, but I think we'll find that some genes have huge differences and others have very little or no difference - it'll be "lumpy".
I think you'll understand all of this better if you learn something about genetic code and how DNA actually codes. That will help you to understand how very small changes, such as a single base change (either substitution, deletion or insertion) can have such widespread consequences within an organism.
Not all changes within DNA are random, for example mobile genetic elements such as transposons or retroviruses have a preference as to what sequences they insert themselves into and how accurately they manage to remove themselves. This increases the mutation rate for certain genes, by splitting them on insertion or deleting bits if and when they excise themselves, taking a bit of the flanking DNA with them. Add to this mistakes made when DNA copies itself, physical damage to DNA which results in a mutation (UV light, chemical carcinogens, radiation) and the real biggie, sexual reproduction which alows the mixing of genes from different individuals and you can see that the opportunities for DNA change are numerous.
Most of the changes are detrimental and not conducive to life (about 50% of all human pregnancies end in the first few days because of genetic problems). A few are neutral, they neither harm nor help, but some help an organism compete much better so the one with the mutation has more chance of reproducing.
Again I urge you to find out about how DNA actually works and codes and we can take it from there.