[Diamond]

Do these writers ever read the original article or talk to the researchers?

"They found five times as many changes in gene expression -- actual activity by the genes -- in the human brain than would be predicted by evolution.

"If two species have been apart for 5 million years, you expect a certain amount of differences," Varki said. But there are many more differences in the human brain than expected. "Whereas if you look at liver and blood, you don't see that," Varki added

There are direct quotations. Apparently the writer has has at least listened to the researchers.

I don't see how the text of the article is much different than your statements that "when human and chimp DNA is compared and average rates for genetic differences are calculated, a genetic evolutionary speed is inferred. But the cognitive difference between humans and chimps is greater than this genetic difference would imply." How is that much different than saying that they found many more differences in the human brain than they expected? And why did they expect certain results? They were expecting different results because they were inferring a "genetic evolutionary speed", as you correctly point out.

Cordially,

[Nebullis]

I already pointed out how the results are not different than expected from evolution. That is a misstatement by the reporter. The difference from expectation as quoted from the researchers is a convention of stating how the results (which they really did expect or they would not have performed this study) are different from conventional statements that there is a one-to-one correspondence between genotype and phenotype, that is, different from popular convention. The hypothesis that the difference is due to differential expression has been around for 25+ years.