It applies to everything. If you fix earth in one universal place, the sun revolves around the earth. Nothing really makes sense, because there are phantom accelerations everywhere (because a more truthful model makes the sun stationary, since it is the much larger object, and experiences less acceleration than the earth does) but aside from those phantom accelerations, which are all real accelerations that the earth is experiencing, which we are applying to the rest of the universe to force earth to stay still, all the other math still checks out.

There isn't a medium that the sun is moving through, nothing is dragging on its material like would produce "waves of fire" in its "path". The movement is imaginary- only real when you're measuring relative to other objects. No motion is universal, this is the big revelation of Einstein's theories of relativity.

It's good to talk things out to help develop ideas. What if the fish become invasive, for example? It invariably happens, see all the times we accidentally introduced X species (usually rat) to non-native lands, then intentionally introduced Y species (bird or cat most often) to deal with X, and instead X and Y are both flourishing, devastating the local ecosystem.

Biological solutions are almost always dangerous and difficult to control like that, unfortunately.

Magnets don't reproduce, so generally there won't be magnet-outbreaks, you know?

Well, then what do we do with the fish? Just not sell it to customers? That'd put a big strain on the fishing industry, which may push them to cut corners and do more ecological damage to the environment to make ends meet

You'll be slightly less effective against different infections, because your immune system spent lots of resources fighting off that first one and will be less prepared against another different one.

Against the same disease, you'll be overprepared, it won't even be able to enter your bloodstream, the lingering antibodies will strangle it to death

Single mutations can also involve the copying or deletion of large chunks of DNA. Levenshtein would be 23 edits off, because only one event was involved in adding a single 24-segment DNA piece. This is a simple thing to calculate, but it misses some of the behavior of mutation, and so misses a bit of the picture. The more true-to-life version is more complex, more nuanced, a bit more up to interpretation, and less capable of giving a single concrete percentage.

It's generally not a very scientific number at all. There are multiple types of mutations that can occur, and they're not all readily comparable. If a certain section of 24 nucleotide pairs get duplicated in one mutation event, is that 1 change, 24, or hundreds to thousands (by offsetting everything after the duplication)?

What this number really means is "human DNA is remarkably similar, human to human" and that's about as far as it goes.

What!? Why not??