The authors included all possibilities and tallied them up quantitatively; this is often done in “the scientific method”, where alternate ideas are given a chance to see if the data conforms. The data that fit the assumption that humans and gorillas were more similar than human and chimp was a “significant fraction”, but obviously not a majority. The majority of the data fit the assumption that humans and chimps are more similar than either is to a gorilla.
Thus their conclusion was that time 1 from the chart your included was for the chimp human split and was about 4 million years ago. The arrow pointing to the gorilla split, you may notice, had time 1 plus time 2. Obviously time 1 plus time 2 gives a greater amount of time than just time 1; but maybe I need to point that out to you, as you seem completely oblivious to the data that you yourself posted.
Their conclusion, from a paper you sourced, was that what you called the “logical impossibility” of humans and chimps being closer in their DNA than either is to a gorilla is in fact the case.
Now you say that the authors you sourced are blinded by ideology. How did their ideology change either their summation of the DNA differences or the DNA data do you suppose?
That is one distinct possibility. An even more distinct possibility is that you are too simple-minded to understand that I occasionally use ape in place of gorilla for the sake of brevity.
==Thus their conclusion was that time 1 from the chart your included was for the chimp human split and was about 4 million years ago. The arrow pointing to the gorilla split, you may notice, had time 1 plus time 2. Obviously time 1 plus time 2 gives a greater amount of time than just time 1; but maybe I need to point that out to you, as you seem completely oblivious to the data that you yourself posted.
I am quite aware of the data, that is why I posted it. Face it Allmendream, your “open-and-shut” case just went up in smoke. And pointing to the philogenetic tree (State HC1) that shows humans diverging from chimps gets you nowhere because the authors layout other philogenetic trees that show humans and chimps diverging from gorillas, but not from each other. And lest there be any doubt about what the authors are saying, they explicitly state that there are hidden philogenetic states that go beyond the sequence data that “can be decoded using the coal-HMM methodology.” And when this methodology is used, it opens up the possibility (again, from a brain-dead Evo point of view) that humans and chimps diverged from apes and not from each other.
PS You can have the last word on this one. Repeating the obvious over and over has become more than a little tiresome.