The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

95% of your evidence is junk for sure.

And how does natural selection preserve sequences in junk DNA? If sequences were beneficial, it would not be junk, so your excuse is just worthless and hopelessly flawed. Do you have anything better, or is this the best you can do to explain the huge difference between data and model?

If 90% is junk and 10% is functional for such distant relatives, then DNA similarity should be around 10% + ¼×90% = 32.5%. Not around 50%.

Thanks for pointing this out.I thought the major argument for common ancestry was that we have so much of our DNA in common with different species that appear to be very different, including plants and such.So it turns out that we actually don't.

Still being childish and using troll tactics, I see.