“The discovery raises questions about the accuracy of using the more typical mutation process as an estimate to date when two species diverged.”
Oops... I’ve pointed out that this type of dating is completely unreliable, because when you extrapolate into the past with so many unknown variables, there is no way to confirm the accuracy of anything the method produces. Vindication tastes sweet :)
You've said nothing that wasn't reported by the scientists themselves.
From the beginning, efforts to calculate average long-term genetic mutation rates were acknowledged as fraught with problems.
Similar problems are found in, for example, carbon-14 dating, where it's possible to compare a calculated carbon-14 date versus a known-for-certain date of some ancient material (i.e., tree rings).
Such careful measurements have produced various charts which are used for what they call "wiggle matching".
Wiggle matching charts convert carbon-14 derived dates to a nearby actual known date.
So far, "wiggle matching" of DNA mutation rates to actual known rates has not been possible.
But recent analyses of ancient DNA in, for example, Neanderthals, makes such charts possible in the future.
Someone should warn the e-Harmony guy.
Someone should warn the e-Harmony guy.