>>My guess is you do not have a science degree either.<<
I do indeed and it is clear you know nothing about science. Now by itself that isn’t a bad thing. I could not rebuild a diesel engine, for example, if I wanted to.
But misrepresenting science - not a good idea. It makes us all look bad.
Bachelors in geology?
Interesting you only use ad hom and won’t defend your statements.
If you can’t see the similarity in evolution and climate change, you are biased.
And not a good scientist.
In both cases solid science is used for distortions for ultra-scientific purpose, e.g. Support social,or political movements and goals.
Articles such as this one also fall in to that category, although for the most part, his hard scientific observations with regard to Chimp Human DNA sequence identity were of note and most likely accurate. His framing of the question was accurate and discription of the problems on genomic sequencing were accurate.
At the same time, I don’t know why he would publish only in his institute’s own journal.
Probably for the same reason in that he also jumps to ultra-scientific conclusions.