[js1138]

How can the fundamental finding of a huge multi-million dollar years long study be a side issue?

It's not a side issue if it has implications, but raw numbers do not have immediate implications to non-specialists.

Suppose the number of people reported killed by the recent hurricanes is eventually found to be off by ten percent? Will that change anyone's worldview?

More importantly, it's obvious from the text that the raw numbers are dependendent on the method of counting. Only a specialist or a deeply involved amateur would know the implications. Everyone has a hobby. I can spot BS in some kinds of science writing, but not all. If you cannot articulate what you think are the implications of your numbers, you add nothing to the discussion.

[tallhappy]

There are many things, one you still don't seem to understand going back to the original post concerning coding region vs the entire genome.

But, how about: why do there have to be any implications?