http://the-scientist.com/2011/12/06/brain-evolution-at-a-distance/

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

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.