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.
Your argument boils down to this..
I say that kid A and B have more classes together than either has with kid C. You point out that kid A and kid C take chemistry together while kid B is taking art class. This doesn't change the fact that kid A and kid B still share more classes with the other than either does with kid C.
Understand?
They dealt with EVERY grouping possibility and counted them up. The pattern of similarity was such that the inescapable conclusion was that chimps and humans are closer than either is to gorilla. THIS was their conclusion, despite your clumsy attempt to cloud the issue, that humans and chimps are more similar than either is to a gorilla, not that they were more similar over every sequence tested, but that they were more similar overall.
You have done NOTHING to show that what you claim is a “logical impossibility” is not in fact the case, as both I, and the authors you sourced maintain.
It must be tedious to keep repeating the same untruthful and made up statements.
Again I quote....
“Furthermore, we have applied this methodology to four long autosomal human–chimp–gorilla–orangutan alignments and estimated a very recent speciation time of human and chimp (around 4 million years)”
Nowhere do they conclude that there is a shorter speciation time for chimps and gorillas. That is simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Once again, that which you claim is a “logical impossibility” is supported by the data. Obviously God knows more about what is logical and possible than you do; as it is obviously part of God's plan to have human and chimps be more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
Here is a popular press review of the same data. Your “logical impossibility” is clearly the reality that biologists must deal with. Humans and chimps are closer in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070224080303465C200804
Experts agree that humans split off from a common ancestor with chimpanzees several million years ago and that gorillas and orangutans split off much earlier.
Experts have long known that humans and chimpanzees share much DNA, and are in fact 96 percent identical on the genetic level.