Are you two busy, or do you just have no estimates? To determine if the differences between man and chimp are reasonably due to chance we need defensable estimates on two things:Hmmmm... I don't think they'll ever know something like that with any degree of specificity. How could they?1) How big was the early population of humans and 2) How many population bottlenecks did humans go through (times when they were reduced to less than a 20 breeding members.
See, here is where we start to disagree. There are several theories for population bottlenecks, none of them definitive yet. For example, see here for the theorized European bottleneck, or the recent FR thread on the Asian descendents of Ghengis Kahn, and I would tend to doubt (a prejudice, I grant) a 20-count human population anywhere but at the very beginning of the species.
The "Out of Africa" theory is, from what I've gathered, just a start to human population history. If we base this exercise on human population bottlenecks for gene fixation, then we are necessarily limited on the conclusions we can draw. I propose a different strategy: We KNOW that chimps and humans are different. The question we are trying to answer, I think, is how did that happen?
I think it would be more informative to identify, investigate, and expand upon the mechanisms of genetic variation. To claim that the chimp-human differences are due to chance is, IMO, to miss an investigative opportunity. "Chance" is not a mechanism. For that matter, neither is "Designer." Gene duplication and replication errors during meiosis and mitosis-- THOSE are mechanisms. The recent work on the role of virii in altering the genetic code is reported to be extremely interesting. For your side, if a Designer did the work, HOW did he do it, are we be able to distinguish "Designed" genetic change from that which occurs naturally, and if so, how would we go about doing that?