Hi there
Like several other respondants I'm a little puzzled by the statistics you quote.
Human DNA is human DNA.
There are many slight differences between individuals which have nothing to do with skin colour.
Many illnesses, for example, arise from genetic mutations - incorrect copying, etc.
Likewise eye colour, hair colour, skin colour are all genretically based, as are general facial features - caucasian, asian, semitic, etc.
On top of this we each have a genotype (the actual genetic make up passed on by our parents) and the phenotype - how the characteristics of the genotype are actually manifested.
On this basis, the idea of "the white races", "the black races" and all the rest are pure balony. There are plenty of ethnic types, but they are all variations within a single "human race".
Incidentally, the stuff quoted about monkeys is entirely misleading. Firstly because the statistics quoted are largely inaccurate.
It WAS the case that the chimp/human comparison showed a similarity of over 98%.
BUT
A report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2003 gave a rather different figure. Roy Britten, author of the study, put the similarity at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included.
The study that indicated a mean identity of 98.77%, or 1.23% differences, between chimps and humans (as in many other studies which have produced similar figures) ONLY considered substitutions, they did NOT take insertions or deletions into account .
It is also worth noting that the percentage of similarity between ALL mammalian DNA is VERY substantial. For example, 69% of the genes in a South American opossum are also found in human beings.
The similarities between mouse and human genomes are even greater, ranging from 70% to 90% (approx.), with an average of 85% similarity (though whilst some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives.)
(How you choose to interpret the significance of that fact is your business.)