Yes, thanks, that is why the link was to your post. I also posted a URL(which might not work. This one might work better....http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982201002275) for those who wanted to read the paper.
It is your right to agree with the authors. On the other hand, it is alright for me to point out that the evidence in the paper is that gorillas and chimps share something that humans lack. The facts are then arranged to achieve a preconceived outcome. You can visualize what the result would be if humans also had the virus allele. The little tree would have remained the same. Same thing if humans and gorillas, but no chimp. Likewise humans and chimps but no gorilla.
1 = the tree as preconceived.
2 = some other tree.
000 = 1 gch 001 = 1 gc 010 = 1 gh 011 = 1 ch(or g as follows) 100 = 1 g 101 = 1 gh 110 = 1 gc 111 = 1 gch
You're objecting to scientists modifying their theory to conform to the evidence??
If humans also had this insert, then of course the tree would remain them same--the evidence would not disprove it. As it is, the evidence allows us to clarify the evolutionary divergence. You say that the idea that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees is a "preconceived notion." The implication is that this is also a baseless notion. In fact this conclusion was drawn from scientific evidence.
The theory of evolution actually would predict instances like this as long as the organisms diverge within a relatively small timeframe.