[Nebullis]

You've laid out reasonable facts. I'll add a few more.

The mutational burden, so to speak, of the human-chimp difference doesn't rest on the human branch alone. The chimp branch also diverged from a common ancester. So, the numbers shrink further.

Are those numbers reasonable from what we know about mutation rates in humans, today? Yes. Researchers studied the mutation rate at a number of different loci and found that these rates agree with the rates implied by the human-chimp genetic difference.

[Condorman]

Thank you for the info. Do you happen to have off-hand any specifics (a link would suffice) on the mutation rate research you mentioned?

[Ahban]

The mutational burden, so to speak, of the human-chimp difference doesn't rest on the human branch alone. The chimp branch also diverged from a common ancester.

True, and Condorman pointed that out. jennyp already had that one covered though, she is using 10 million year divergence instead of five million to take into account that you have two groups that are diverging. All of these estimates that we are making have that factored in.

Along with "C", I will be glad to take a look at any link you have on human mutation rates. I would especially like to know about the FIXATION of such mutations in the population.

I don't mean the fixation of some existing Alelle in some sub population, but a truly novel mutation establishing itself in a group. That is what we need to know, not just the mutation rate, but the novel mutation rate, and not just the novel mutation rate, but the fixation rate.