99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!

[omega2xx]

Well, of course I consider it the truth. Just by simple observation. You could actually infer evolution, even without scientists around. That is what some philosophers did before Jesus.

Inferring is easy, proving is the meat of the observation.

Ever seen a gorilla? Or a chimp? Do you think us and gorilla, and the gorilla and the chimps, and us and the chimps, developed their undeniable common traits independently from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

Then why do gorillas and humans never get a prehensile tail. Then children would never get hurt on the monkey bars, or should we call them the human bars or maybe to be biologically correct the monkey, human bars. Yeah, I like that best. Where is natural selection when we really need it.

What do you think are the chances of that? I would say they are vastly lower than the Universe arising by chance, as you guys would put it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

The same could be asked of you:

Have you witness God creating the world, sun, land, vegetation, animals and humans?

Reading and believing a book about creation is not the same as witnessing these mythological events.



Judging by what you are saying here, you don't know evidence is.

Scientific evidence is based on what can be quantified and measured and observed.

Observed don't always just referred to our perceptual senses, like sight, hearing, touch or smell, because sometimes we cannot see or hear or feel what we are investigating, therefore we used some tools to assist with the measuring.

For instance, we can see a electric wire or electronic circuitry, but we cannot see the electricity, we cannot measure what we see or hear, but if we were to touch expose live wire, we risk electrocution. To measure what cannot see, we might use instrument like a or similar device,measuring the current, resistance, voltage and power.

And though we cannot see live changes of past species of animals and plants, it is possible to compare species against each other from remains and fossils.

To say there are no evidences in the theory of evolution, only showed your level of incompetency and ignorance in palaeontology and stratigraphy, and even just basic biology.

And when you compare species, you don't compare dogs to cats or horses. You would compare them against other canine (domesticated dogs) and canine-like creatures (wolves, jackals, coyotes, etc). And you would compare them by where they live, examining the terrains and climates.

For instance, comparing the wild canines, like wolves and jackals.

The jackals lived in the arid areas, where water are scarcer and climate can be very hot during the day all year round, but very cold at night. Living here, if there are any fur on their hides, they are short or not exist at all.

But a gray wolf lived in more temperate or colder regions, requiring longer and heavier fur. Wolves are also lot larger than jackals, having more body fats than jackals, and like their thicker fur, to help them insulated them from the cold. The jackals are leaner and don't require as much body fat, because they don't require such insulation from the cold.

That all tell me that the jackals and wolves shared common ancestry, but at some point, back in time, there have been divergence between the two, each developing body that are better suited for the natural environments they lived in. (Environment means the geographical terrains, the availability of cover, of food and water, and the climates).

In another word, the environment is what make animals evolve. They have to adapt to the environment, passing the right genes to offspring, by choosing the appropriate mates. It is just like genetic, but here the animals selectively choose which to mate.

That's Natural Selection at work.

Another example, would be divergence of the brown bears, where the polar bears became a separate species to the brown bears, because they live in different zone with different climate to the habitats of the brown bears.

The polar bears, though similar in many ways o the brown bears, but because they living in much cooler climate of the Arctic region, the polar bears have to develope different morphology and phenotypic characteristics, different metabolism and different dietary, different social behaviour, and different living patterns.

Again, these different species of bears, brown bears and polar bears, showed Natural Selection at work.

Do you want another example?

How about the different species of tortoises living on the islands of Galápagos.

There are the smaller dome-shaped shell tortoises living on one island, but in another island, are the giant tortoises, with different shape shells (known as saddleback shells), and long legs and necks.

The reasons why the tortoises show markedly different physical characteristics, is because of again, the environments they lived in are different, despite been neighbouring islands.

Not looking at the evidences, just show that are unwilling to learn biology.

Seriously, what science does the bible teach? "God did it" explains nothing, and it tests nothing.

Creationism is simply based on believing in myths and superstitions.

 

[omega2xx]

The same could be asked of you:

Have you witness God creating the world, sun, land, vegetation, animals and humans?

Reading and believing a book about creation is not the same as witnessing these mythological events.



Judging by what you are saying here, you don't know evidence is.

Scientific evidence is based on what can be quantified and measured and observed.

Observed don't always just referred to our perceptual senses, like sight, hearing, touch or smell, because sometimes we cannot see or hear or feel what we are investigating, therefore we used some tools to assist with the measuring.

For instance, we can see a electric wire or electronic circuitry, but we cannot see the electricity, we cannot measure what we see or hear, but if we were to touch expose live wire, we risk electrocution. To measure what cannot see, we might use instrument like a or similar device,measuring the current, resistance, voltage and power.

And though we cannot see live changes of past species of animals and plants, it is possible to compare species against each other from remains and fossils.

To say there are no evidences in the theory of evolution, only showed your level of incompetency and ignorance in palaeontology and stratigraphy, and even just basic biology.

And when you compare species, you don't compare dogs to cats or horses. You would compare them against other canine (domesticated dogs) and canine-like creatures (wolves, jackals, coyotes, etc). And you would compare them by where they live, examining the terrains and climates.

For instance, comparing the wild canines, like wolves and jackals.

The jackals lived in the arid areas, where water are scarcer and climate can be very hot during the day all year round, but very cold at night. Living here, if there are any fur on their hides, they are short or not exist at all.

But a gray wolf lived in more temperate or colder regions, requiring longer and heavier fur. Wolves are also lot larger than jackals, having more body fats than jackals, and like their thicker fur, to help them insulated them from the cold. The jackals are leaner and don't require as much body fat, because they don't require such insulation from the cold.

That all tell me that the jackals and wolves shared common ancestry, but at some point, back in time, there have been divergence between the two, each developing body that are better suited for the natural environments they lived in. (Environment means the geographical terrains, the availability of cover, of food and water, and the climates).

In another word, the environment is what make animals evolve. They have to adapt to the environment, passing the right genes to offspring, by choosing the appropriate mates. It is just like genetic, but here the animals selectively choose which to mate.

That's Natural Selection at work.

Another example, would be divergence of the brown bears, where the polar bears became a separate species to the brown bears, because they live in different zone with different climate to the habitats of the brown bears.

The polar bears, though similar in many ways o the brown bears, but because they living in much cooler climate of the Arctic region, the polar bears have to develope different morphology and phenotypic characteristics, different metabolism and different dietary, different social behaviour, and different living patterns.

Again, these different species of bears, brown bears and polar bears, showed Natural Selection at work.

Do you want another example?

How about the different species of tortoises living on the islands of Galápagos.

There are the smaller dome-shaped shell tortoises living on one island, but in another island, are the giant tortoises, with different shape shells (known as saddleback shells), and long legs and necks.

The reasons why the tortoises show markedly different physical characteristics, is because of again, the environments they lived in are different, despite been neighbouring islands.

Not looking at the evidences, just show that are unwilling to learn biology.

Seriously, what science does the bible teach? "God did it" explains nothing, and it tests nothing.

Creationism is simply based on believing in myths and superstitions.

I will answer your question when you answer mine and when you present the evidence that creationism is based on myth and superstitution.

 

[viole]

Inferring is easy, proving is the meat of the observation.



Then why do gorillas and humans never get a prehensile tail. Then children would never get hurt on the monkey bars, or should we call them the human bars or maybe to be biologically correct the monkey, human bars. Yeah, I like that best. Where is natural selection when we really need it.

Because evolution iinvolves being good enough to survive. It is not into perfect design, if there was such a thing. I also would have preferred to have a beak instead of teeth. That would have saved me a lot of money. And I would also have loved it if humans had eight arms like a spider. Imagine Bach or Mozart with eight arms.

So, do you agree that both us and gorillas could have been better?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am afraid it is a fact. The theory part is trying to explain those facts. In the same way gravitational theory tries to explain the facts surrounding gravity.

I can't see that it is a fact, but that's what you believe and I should respect that. Earlier I meant I "believe" it isn't fact. Not that I'm trying to disrespect believing it is.

And you are right that sharing traits at the level they are shared, does not necessarility entail common ancestry. But it is vastly more likely and plausible that they do. For, the chance that so similar traits developed independently on different trees of life is the same as the chance that aliens look like humans and speak English. Like in Star Trek.

Great! That's what I've been saying all along. And "more likely" certainly does not mean for certain

You can be rude with me any time you want. I did not notice any rudeness, but probably I would have not noticed it, even if you had been, indeed, rude. I am incapable to be offended or hurt in any significant way. Especially in a discussion forum.

So, fire at will

Cool

 

[viole]

I can't see that it is a fact, but that's what you believe and I should respect that. Earlier I meant I "believe" it isn't fact. Not that I'm trying to disrespect believing it is.

I do not believe that evolution is a fact. I do not believe that I am a woman, either. I just accept the evidence thereof. I only believe when there is not evidence. And I do have beliefs (that have no evidence).

Great! That's what I've been saying all along. And "more likely" certainly does not mean for certain

Yes, science is not into certainties. That is left to other human endeavors. You still have a chance to be right. Flat earthers could also be right.

But I have to ask you. What are the rational reasons that led you to put your money on something that unlikely?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

I will answer your question when you answer mine and when you present the evidence that creationism is based on myth and superstitution.

Can I ask you a very simple question?

If you can answer this, I will explain exactly why and how creationism is not true.

When do you think the Flood occurred?

I am talking about your estimated date or year that Moses boarded the Ark.

I am guessing that you being a Presbyterian, that you are most likely relying on the King James Version (KJV) bible or some other more modern English translations of the bible.

Most English translations are translated mostly from the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, with the Masoretic Text being the main source, and in the case of the KJV, the KJV also supplemented certain passages using the Greek Septuagint.

So if you will answer my question or give me an idea of which bible you read on daily basis, I will explain to you why Genesis creation is a myth.

 

[idav]

I will answer your question when you answer mine and when you present the evidence that creationism is based on myth and superstitution.

Dna tells us a couple of things, one all humans have 99.9% dna and two, that all other types of apes are distant relatives separated by millions of years of evolution regardless of the exact percentage there is a lot of significance.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I do not believe that evolution is a fact. I do not believe that I am a woman, either. I just accept the evidence thereof. I only believe when there is not evidence. And I do have beliefs (that have no evidence).

Unless the evidence is theorized like in our case here. 99% DNA similarity is no 100% similarity; no indenticality (if that's a word)

Yes, science is not into certainties. That is left to other human endeavors. You still have a chance to be right. Flat earthers could also be right.

But I have to ask you. What are the rational reasons that led you to put your money on something that unlikely?

You're expecting flat earthers to be right? You're doubting something science actively confirmed for certain/sure! On the other hand, you're saying that something not actively confirmed; i.e. having a common ancestor with chimps, is true and a fact?

I'm not following. What's the unlikely thing I'm putting my money on? (despite the fact I haven't received my salary for 5 moth now)

 

[idav]

Unless the evidence is theorized like in our case here. 99% DNA similarity is no 100% similarity; no indenticality (if that's a word)



You're expecting flat earthers to be right? You're doubting something science actively confirmed for certain/sure! On the other hand, you're saying that something not actively confirmed; i.e. having a common ancestor with chimps, is true and a fact?

I'm not following. What's the unlikely thing I'm putting my money on? (despite the fact I haven't received my salary for 5 moth now)

No animal on the planet is 100% similar, even identical twins.

Similar species are bound to have similarities in DNA. DNA tells us when a species shared something with us, most likely via procreation.

 

[viole]

Unless the evidence is theorized like in our case here. 99% DNA similarity is no 100% similarity; no indenticality (if that's a word)

If it was identical we will be the same species. Actually, the same person or a twin.

You're expecting flat earthers to be right? You're doubting something science actively confirmed for certain/sure! On the other hand, you're saying that something not actively confirmed; i.e. having a common ancestor with chimps, is true and a fact?

I am not expecting flat earthers to be right. Where did you get that? I said that flat earthers could be right. In the same way creationists could be right, without me expecting to be so. They could be both right, with the same Bayesian probability, considering the evidence,

I'm not following. What's the unlikely thing I'm putting my money on? (despite the fact I haven't received my salary for 5 moth now)

It is very unlikely that we and chimps have almost the same genome if we developed it on different and independent trees of life. I would say the odds against that are ridicolously small. Same probability of finding one earth-like planet and realise that it is populated with beings that share 99% of our genome. I call this the Star Trek fallacy

Assuming we find one such planet, would you put your money on it having beings that share 99% of our genome? What about 10%?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

If it was identical we will be the same species. Actually, the same person or a twin.

This means we already share ancestors with every sinigle living thing out there for having some DNA similarities. This includes mice and chickens since there is a DNA similarity with them. Why would only 99% and with chimps mean there is a common ancestor and not other percentage and creature?

I am not expecting flat earthers to be right. Where did you get that? I said that flat earthers could be right. In the same way creationists could be right, without me expecting to be so. They could be both right, with the same Bayesian probability, considering the evidence,

"Could be right" means expectations are there. That's what it means. If you don't expect them to be right, you can't say they could be right!

It is very unlikely that we and chimps have almost the same genome if we developed it on different and independent trees of life. I would say the odds against that are ridicolously small. Same probability of finding one earth-like planet and realise that it is populated with beings that share 99% of our genome. I call this the Star Trek fallacy

Assuming we find one such planet, would you put your money on it having beings that share 99% of our genome? What about 10%?

Um, I'm still not following. If I put my money on something in what we're having here, it should be something I said in this thread. Could you please quote that along so I know what exactly you're referring to?

 

[viole]

This means we already share ancestors with every sinigle living thing out there for having some DNA similarities. This includes mice and chickens since there is a DNA similarity with them. Why would only 99% and with chimps mean there is a common ancestor and not other percentage and creature?

Because we need to go a step at the time. Once we agree that we share a common ancestor with gorillas, we can go to next step.

So, what do you think?

By the way, I have evidence that I share 100% DNA with an ape. Would that convince you?

"Could be right" means expectations are there. That's what it means. If you don't expect them to be right, you can't say they could be right!

Nope. I do not expect to win the next 10 lotteries and become a billionaire. But I might indeed win the next 10 lotteries. Why not?

Um, I'm still not following. If I put my money on something in what we're having here, it should be something I said in this thread. Could you please quote that along so I know what exactly you're referring to?

Suppose for now there is no god (temporary assumption), would you still believe that we and chimps developed our 99% DNA, plus all other characteristics, by developing all those characteristics on independent trees of life without a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Because we need to go a step at the time. Once we agree that we share a common ancestor with gorillas, we can go to next step.

So, what do you think?

By the way, I have evidence that I share 100% DNA with an ape. Would that convince you?

I think that's an invalid argument. We do not share common ancestor with gorillas. The logic related to the DNA here perfectly applies to all other creatures already.

Wait, you're the same species, person or a twin with an ape? What is this evidence? I wouldn't be convinced, but I'd respect that thought and not argue or try to impose otherwise on you. You're a nice person

Nope. I do not expect to win the next 10 lotteries and become a billionaire. But I might indeed win the next 10 lotteries. Why not?

Yes, why not? I hope you do!

Suppose for now there is no god (temporary assumption), would you still believe that we and chimps developed our 99% DNA, plus all other characteristics, by developing all those characteristics on independent trees of life without a common ancestor?

Yes. I can't see the logic in having anything other that we are of completely different creatures. We are similar in DNA but we are not proven to be related. I don't see why DNA similarity implies ancestry relationship in the first place. Reports say mice share 90% DNA with humans. Both percentages; i.e. the chimp's and mice', are not perfect, so the logic behind that theory also means humans share ancestry with mice, or at least says it is possible. To me it is not, and no theories can change that. But why are you involving God in this? Did I mention Him some where?

 

[viole]

I think that's an invalid argument. We do not share common ancestor with gorillas. The logic related to the DNA here perfectly applies to all other creatures already.

Yes, and we have a common ancestor with each of them. Gorillas, carrots, trees, spiders, etc. We are just closer relatives to gorillas than carrots, and that is why we look pretty similar.

Wait, you're the same species, person or a twin with an ape? What is this evidence? I wouldn't be convinced, but I'd respect that thought and not argue or try to impose otherwise on you. You're a nice person

I am an ape, ergo I share 100% genome with an ape. A great ape, to be precise.

Yes, why not? I hope you do!

I hope to win the lottery, but I do not expect to win the lottery. If I expected to win the lottery 10 times and become a billionaire, I would buy on credit a lot of things now with the expectation to relinquish my huge debt very soon. In other words, I would be crazy.

By the way: I do not play games with negative expected return, in general.

Yes. I can't see the logic in having anything other that we are of completely different creatures. We are similar in DNA but we are not proven to be related. I don't see why DNA similarity implies ancestry relationship in the first place. Reports say mice share 90% DNA with humans. Both percentages; i.e. the chimp's and mice', are not perfect, so the logic behind that theory also means humans share ancestry with mice, or at least says it is possible. To me it is not, and no theories can change that. But why are you involving God in this? Did I mention Him some where?

You did not invoke God. I just want to make sure it is out of the equation, for the moment.

So, let's analize your claim logically, under the naturalistic assumption.

If we and gorillas are not related, then it follows necessarily that we do not have a common ancestor. That necessisates also that life appeared on earth at least twice and independently, otherwise we would have a common ancestor: that unique initial organism.

So, there must be at least two non intersecting branches of life. On one branch we have humans, and on the other branch we have gorillas.

Now, it happens that humans and gorillas developed the same form of life (dna based), share 99% of the information coded in this storage system and look pretty similar. Both mammals, both primates, both with two eyes, a nose, teeth, a heart, a liver, a brain, a lot of similar organs.

And this completely independently on two separate trees of life.

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes, and we have a common ancestor with each of them. Gorillas, carrots, trees, spiders, etc. We are just closer relatives to gorillas than carrots, and that is why we look pretty similar.

That's called being made to adapt with the nature surrounding us, not having common ancestor, which is the real reason we happened to be similar. And how could we have common ancestors with carrots? Now you're saying it is possible we evolved from plants like this! Wait, don't tell me Carrot Head (that's a link) is your source?

I am an ape, ergo I share 100% genome with an ape. A great ape, to be precise.

Can't really say anything if you say you are. Like I said, I respect your views.

I hope to win the lottery, but I do not expect to win the lottery. If I expected to win the lottery 10 times and become a billionaire, I would buy on credit a lot of things now with the expectation to relinquish my huge debt very soon. In other words, I would be crazy.

By the way: I do not play games with negative expected return, in general.

You can't really hope to win if you say you don't expect to win. That would be you "wish" not "hope". Hope means there is a possibility something will happen.

And good call on not taking those games. I don't too.

You did not invoke God. I just want to make sure it is out of the equation, for the moment.
So, let's analize your claim logically, under the naturalistic assumption.

If we and gorillas are not related, then it follows necessarily that we do not have a common ancestor. That necessisates also that life appeared on earth at least twice and independently, otherwise we would have a common ancestor: that unique initial organism.

So, there must be at least two non intersecting branches of life. On one branch we have humans, and on the other branch we have gorillas.

Now, it happens that humans and gorillas developed the same form of life (dna based), share 99% of the information coded in this storage system and look pretty similar. Both mammals, both primates, both with two eyes, a nose, teeth, a heart, a liver, a brain, a lot of similar organs.

And this completely independently on two separate trees of life.

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that?

Yes, I do. My first comment above talks about it too. There are so many independent trees of life that appeared independently. and no, it does not necessarily mean life appeared a number of times on earth, tho it is possible, why not? If only one life managed to appeared at some time, why not more? Why does it have to be only one life was allowed to appear and that all creatures came from it sharing same ancestor? If you say it is not possible life appeared more than once on earth, then how come only one life could have, if it was only one life that appeared to begin with?

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's called being made to adapt with the nature surrounding us, not having common ancestor, which is the real reason we happened to be similar. And how could we have common ancestors with carrots? Now you're saying it is possible we evolved from plants like this! Wait, don't tell me Carrot Head (that's a link) is your source?

What evidence can you reveal to us that we were "made to adapt with the nature surrounding us....."...?

 

[Smart_Guy]

What evidence can you reveal to us that we were "made to adapt with the nature surrounding us....."...?

That's a very good question!

It's all over the place. Our feet are almost flat with short toes because humans walk around on the ground while monkeys have longer toes because they use the trees to avoid predators, our lungs processes air to get oxygen while fish have lungs to process water for it, we have thick fingers because we use our hands for almost all of our errands while cattle has hoofs to protect their feet from hazard, we lack so much natural physical protective means because we have human intelligent brains to cover up for it and much more... it's all over the place. Not to mention the more direct adapting that muscles grow bigger and stronger when used so the body adapt to the nature of the work done, for example.

But I guess I used the wrong expression there. I think it should be governed with something like "we were made to be ready with our species specific surrounding nature" or something. Also, by "were made", I didn't mean created by God (even tho it is my view), I meant "came to be" regardless to how we did.

 

[viole]

That's called being made to adapt with the nature surrounding us, not having common ancestor, which is the real reason we happened to be similar. And how could we have common ancestors with carrots? Now you're saying it is possible we evolved from plants like this! Wait, don't tell me Carrot Head (that's a link) is your source?

Gaah! We did not evolve from plants. We share a common ancestor with plants. Not the same thing at all.

And it is not only me saying this. It is virtually the whole scientific community saying this.

Can't really say anything if you say you are. Like I said, I respect your views.

Not my view really. Again, virtually the whole scientific community. I actually have preferred to be a spider. Or be able to fly without going through security checks. Like eagles, for instance. I am not particularly happy to be an ape, but nobody is perfect.

You can't really hope to win if you say you don't expect to win. That would be you "wish" not "hope". Hope means there is a possibility something will happen.

I am not sure. There is a possibility that I win the next 100 lotteries, if I played that is, but that does not entail that I hope that to happen. I could also win money if I get relly sick and my insurance has to pay much more than I pay regularly, but that does not entail that I hope nor wish to win money like that.

And good call on not taking those games. I don't too.

I do when the expected gain is greater than zero. Or even when it is marginally lower than zero, for fun. Probably it is much more probable to become a millionaire by playing roulette in a Casino than with the official state lottery, starting with the same initial bet.
The former is usually frowned upon while the latter is considered so acceptable that even my grandmother played it. I always wondered why. Makes no mathematical sense.

Yes, I do. My first comment above talks about it too. There are so many independent trees of life that appeared independently. and no, it does not necessarily mean life appeared a number of times on earth, tho it is possible, why not? If only one life managed to appeared at some time, why not more? Why does it have to be only one life was allowed to appear and that all creatures came from it sharing same ancestor? If you say it is not possible life appeared more than once on earth, then how come only one life could have, if it was only one life that appeared to begin with?

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that?

How can there be many independent trees of life without necessarily having life appearing an equal number of times, or more, on earth?

But lets suppose it did. What are the probability of two of those independent trees to independently converge towards, well, apes sharing 99% of their characteristics?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Gaah! We did not evolve from plants. We share a common ancestor with plants. Not the same thing at all.

And it is not only me saying this. It is virtually the whole scientific community saying this.

Eh? I didn't say we evolved from plants, I said you're putting the possibility that we did. That's a logical conclusion for having a common ancestor. You did say we have common ancestors with carrots.

Not my view really. Again, virtually the whole scientific community. I actually have preferred to be a spider. Or be able to fly without going through security checks. Like eagles, for instance. I am not particularly happy to be an ape, but nobody is perfect.

At some point a whole scientific community thought the earth was flat. Whole scientific communities don't necessarily define facts. And you said it, no one is perfect. This only means scientific communities are not perfect too, therefor their findings are not necessarily correct.

And hey, life is still beautiful. Cheer up

I am not sure. There is a possibility that I win the next 100 lotteries, if I played that is, but that does not entail that I hope that to happen. I could also win money if I get relly sick and my insurance has to pay much more than I pay regularly, but that does not entail that I hope nor wish to win money like that.

I wish you good health. I hope you don't even need to use your health insurance.

I do when the expected gain is greater than zero. Or even when it is marginally lower than zero, for fun. Probably it is much more probable to become a millionaire by playing roulette in a Casino than with the official state lottery, starting with the same initial bet.
The former is usually frowned upon while the latter is considered so acceptable that even my grandmother played it. I always wondered why. Makes no mathematical sense.

I can't for any reason. It's forbidden in my beliefs

How can there be many independent trees of life without necessarily having life appearing an equal number of times, or more, on earth?

I don't see why there can't be.

But lets suppose it did. What are the probability of two of those independent trees to independently converge towards, well, apes sharing 99% of their characteristics?

A random probability based on the similarity that was born out of the need to be fit to live in the environments we live in is the key. We happened to have similar traits for becoming to be in similar environments, and those traits were pushed thru DNA, since it is the only way to grow those traits. basically put; we do not have to be in the same tree of life to share DNA similarity. If we do, why? The human body is made of elements share with even non living things, like oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. This is even out of the tree of life equation.