The book by the same name demonstrates the divide between humans and chimps is quite wide, and not quite as close as the 98% DNA difference would claim. Now a statisical analysis, using 30 base stretches on DNA shows the true difference is much wider:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-all... intelligent observer would note that the * behind "98% identical" is looking only at functional proteins such as hemoglobin or other similar structures. Humans (and chimps) are more than just our functional proteins. -Though I'm not a fan of uncommon descent. It was launched by Dembski for the continued purpose of using ID as a political tool to inject evangelical Christianity in to every aspect of American Life. Yeah. I trust him about as much as Lenin. And yes, every blog post that references the site will be poo-pooed by me. I've never been impressed with Dembski's "mathematics." -Do the mathematics of "niwrad" fare any better? -Some statements make me raise my head immediately. "I don't need to worry about qualitative issues such as functionality; only statistical issues count."-This frames his search. The claim of 98% similarity always refers to functional groups. In both the cases of human and chimp DNA, searchers are still ongoing to find out for example, what does the "junk" do?-His method is sound, but he conveniently hides the very well-known fact that the 95% number espoused by bioinformaticists is again, on known genes that code for known proteins. It's an awful sleight-of-hand to try and target this claim when its more often made by science journalists (and ignorant apologists) than by researchers.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The book by the same name demonstrates the divide between humans and chimps is quite wide, and not quite as close as the 98% DNA difference would claim. Now a statisical analysis, using 30 base stretches on DNA shows the true difference is much wider:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-all...

A new study that shows why we are so different. The 98% may be true if an uncritical lump of total human DNA and chimp DNA are studied, but looking at insertions and retro-transpositions we differ a great deal:

http://www.mobilednajournal.com/content/pdf/1759-8753-2-13.pdf

More support for the idea that although our DNA bases are generally similar, the expression of genes is very different:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm