Ureysoo aka Mrs. Verbiage,
"1st, the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the *DNAs* of man and chimp, is deceptive… in order 2 claim that the genetic *make-ups* of man and chimp bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimp also has 2 be mapped just as that of man's, the 2 has 2 be contrasted, and the upshot of this comparison has 2 be obtained"
Who told you this? You don't need to map out the entire genome of chimps and humans to determine how closely they are related. This can be done by other method/s.
To get the most accurate figure, its best to compare the entire decoded genomes of both humans and chimps. This means comparing gene-by-gene of the entire genome of each species, and there are thousands of them.
However, initially we were able to compare the DNA of various species by comparing a particular chromosome/s of species A with the exact counterpart chromosome/s of Species B. Scientists would look at where the two nucleotide sequences diverge. From this there are able to extrapolate, first taking into consideration factors such as insertions and deletions of base pairs, the percent similarity.
In retrospect, those methods were pretty accurate. The percent DNA similarity between chimps and humans using the decoded DNA sequences of both species and the old method are almost the same. So you are wrong on two accounts. You are in the method you thought was used to compare the genome of both species and you are wrong to claim that the 98% figure is wrong. The 98% figure was all along almost the right figure.
"One the other hands some other creature r similar 2 humans, when it comes 2 proteins, like *mosquitoes and chickens*…another thing is maybe the chimps r bit similar 2 humans in some genetic make-ups, and chromosomes as there r *48* chromosomes in chimp versus *46* chromosomes in man….but *war heedhe* u know the verity that the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man *46*…does that mean humans and potatoes came from similar *ancestor*"
It seems to me that you think scientists rely on DNA of species to classify their evolutionary relationship or determine how closely they are related to each other. This is not the case. Chimps were ALWAYS considered to be man's closest evolutionary relatives, that before advent of genetics or when genetics was in its infancy. Comparative anatomy alone verifies this fact. We never thought man's closest evolutionary relative were dogs, as dogs body design resembles nothing like that of humans. The internal organs of chimps as well as thier physiological functioning are nearly identical to humans. So we always knew that chimps were our closest relatives, ALWAYS!
Now, to chromosomes. Again, you are wrong. I don't know whether it's someone feeding you bad information or you're having hard time understanding what you were reading. No reputable scientific paper or text or source would have told you that chromosome numbers determine species characteristics. They DON'T. It's whats is inside the chromosomes that determines the characteristics of each species. Namely the genes.
It's prudent to know that chromosomes are structures used to package genes, the hereditary unit. This is needed becuz during cell division, you want equal assortment of chromosomes where each daughter cell gets have of its DNA information from each parent or dividing cell. Chromosomes simply provide structures that help the proper assortment and division of genes during cell divisions.
Now, consider the implications of what may manifest if chromosome numbers determined species. Consider the case of abnormal karyotypes humans. They may have more than or fewer than 46 chromosomes due to abnormal chromosome assortment. What would you call such ppl since they don't have 46 chromosomes?

mutants? subhumans? freaks?
Note that these ppl are normally functioning like everyone else.
"why didn’t chimps response, 2 the environmental change, and *4 example*… if I obligated a chimp 4 reside in dissimilar state of affair…(live in a city) would that particular chimp respond 2 that change, and enlarge some brain cells that might assist 2 be categorised as a human"
I forget to mention that while our ancestors were evolving, so too were the ancestors of modern chimps and great apes. But they didn't lose their natural habitat where our ancestor did. The climate change and subsequent environmental change didn't affect their niche as much as it did to that of our ancestor. That explains why we look so much different today, evolved, from each other although we had common ancestor.
You will NEVER observe the evolution of chimps or animals of such size in your life time. Such evolution or speciation takes long time and many generations. But with animals of shorter life span, like Drosophila, roundworms, bacteria, we have observed speciations.
Brain size depends on the motor activities that the animals need to perform. The more motor activities an animal performs, the bigger brain it needs. This is why under water animals have smallest brains (relative to body size) after amphibians (half land, half water dwelling), with fully terrestial animals having biggest brains.
"Creationism, it’s so unproblematic 2 define and comprehend … *Adam*… *Allayhi as Salaam* was the prime ancestor of all humankind….like averred in the *Quran*…*It is he who created you from a single person* (4 : 1)…. while *Xawa* was made out his mold and the two were the original progenitors of Homo sapiens or humankind."
Adam and xawa couldn't have possible been the progenitors of Homo sapiens. They were created about 6000-10000 years ago. While Homo Sapiens have been around 10s of thousands of years. Further, creation story, if right, would mean the descendents of xawa and adam had sex with each other. That is impossibility as the children of siblings are born mentally retarded
"beside I won’t humiliate u cause u r *atheist*, and simulate like what u scribble down in couple of occasions r beneath consideration (cause I abhor the fact u r atheist)"
Please humiliate me, it means I'll finally learn something from this site, really. Feel free to unleash everything you got, show no clemency
"unfortunately according 2 this debate, what u alleged is erroneous"
But you haven't demonstrated that to be true. Yet, anyways. Maybe someday.