Thanks! That's some great information so what are people arguing for with chimps and humans then? They can't interbreed so who cares if those squiggly little DNA look similar or not?
Actually, that's not known for certain. The main reasons for not experimenting with in vitro fertilization seem to be ethical rather than logistical. From what I've read though, best guess is that there has been too much genetic divergence in the 6 MY between the chimp/human split to produce even a sterile offspring now.
A cool paper did come out a few years back that indicated the chimp/human split was not a clean one, but that the two species did continue to, er, swap genetic material
for at least a million years afterwards.
'Chumanzee' evolution: the urge to diverge and merge
Todd R Disotell
Genome Biology 2006, 7:240
Abstract: A recent analysis of the human and chimpanzee genomes compared with portions of other primate genomes suggests that the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages beginning around 6 million years ago was not a simple clean split.
More interestingly, Patterson et al.  found that the amount of molecular divergence (the proportion of nucleotides differing between human and chimpanzees) between any region varied between 84% and 147% of the overall average level of divergence. Furthermore, they found that the sequences from the X chromosome diverged from each other by only 83.5% of the average overall divergence, instead of the approximately 93% divergence they inferred from their modeling of the X chromosome. A smaller degree of divergence is expected in sequences on the X chromosome because the number of copies of the X chromosome in a population of any primate species is only three quarters of the number of copies of any autosome. The smaller effective population size of the X chromosome will only be able to generate and maintain a smaller amount of variation. The same is true, but even more so, for the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, whose effective population sizes are only a quarter those of the autosomes. Peterson et al.  interpret this reduced amount of variation on the X chromosome to mean that humans and chimpanzees were still exchanging X chromosomes 1.2 million years after the species split (Figure 2). Hence the headlines of ancestral chimpanzees and humans mating.
If chimpanzees and humans were hybridizing for over a million years after their 'split', this might imply that the early human lineage still maintained the 2n = 48 karyotype found among all the great apes (modern humans have 2n = 46). Such a speculation might also explain the apparent lack of hybridization found between modern humans and the very closely related extinct Neanderthals . If the population leading to the modern human lineage subsequently underwent a chromosomal fusion event, giving us our 2n = 46 karyotype, while the Neanderthal lineage retained 2n = 48, perhaps modern humans could not successfully interbreed with Neanderthals.
full text of overview article with good diagrams
link to original paper "Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees"
It sounds like science, in general, is shooting in the dark to really understand the whole DNA superstructure.
Shooting in the dark? Genetics is a billion dollar a year industry. Hundreds of animals have had their entire DNA sequenced, with hundreds more being done as we speak. Have you never heard of the Human Genome Project
? And you may poo poo them, but phylogenetic trees derived from statistical genomic distance analysis are used all over the place in science. They also correlate with better than 99% accuracy with similar trees independently derived from the fossil record.
So why should the evolution fairy tale receive special treatment to get divine status of playing God in an area we know so little about?
Why do you think evolution gets special treatment? It's evolution that's doing all the research and publishing all the results. It's the YEs who seem to want their ideas to be excluded from scientific testing.
Is it really true that Zebra's vary from 46 to 32 chromosomes? From what I understand Horses and Zebras can interbreed as well:
Yep, it's true. Fascinating, innit?
Gregor Mendel showed that hybridization is not a good thing for evolution because selective breeding just toyed with existing data. Which has now been conclusively demonstrated in the DNA of organisms.
Hybridization is not a bad thing as long as the gene pool is big enough. The problems come in when you have a small breeding population with not enough genetic diversity ('genetic bottleneck') and the inbreeding causes the reemergence of harmful recessive traits. That's one of the things that screwed the Romanovs royal dynasty in Russia - many of them suffered from hemophilia due to all the close inter family marriages.
Which leads back to the question I've asked repeatedly. If all the animals we see today arose from 2 (or 7) breeding pairs on the Ark, why do none of them show genetic evidence of a severe population bottleneck only 4400 years ago?
I will say that I would like to know what a horse DNA and Zebra DNA do to make viable offspring with so many Chromosome number differences.
Again, it's not the number of chromosomes but what's on them. Breaking one or fusing one doesn't affect the large majority of the genetic codon sequences.