This was a specific study of genes for elucidation of genetic lineages. Genes are more similar between species, that is why they are not generally used to construct phylogenetic trees and ERV’s or pseudogenes are.
The phylogenetic tree they drew was the RED one, the one that agrees with both the genetic and ERV data, the one supported by over 75% of the sequences they tested. The one that appears SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS THREAD, posted by both myself AND you.
That grouping again, for the painfully obtuse, is ((H*C)G)O; human and chimps, gorillas, then orangutans. A human and a gorilla are much more similar to each other than either is to an orangutan and that is supported by 98% of the genetic data. So much for your ‘similar body = similar DNA’ explanation.
==You keep saying “look at that 11%!” and ignore the 75%.
I’m saying your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics can’t make up their minds what comes from what, a classic example of Evo confusion. Otherwise, why all the alternative genetic trees?
==Genes are more similar between species, that is why they are not generally used to construct phylogenetic trees and ERV’s or pseudogenes are.
First you say ERVs and pseudogenes are open-and-shut cases demonstrating common descent. I went down both those roads with you not knowing anything about either, but proceeding on faith, only to find out that not only did your best evidence not demonstrate common descent, but, praise God almighty, both point to God as the common designer. The same holds true with what you call ultraconserved sequences, hot-shock proeteins, etc, etc...you name it, everything you have pointed to testifies to God’s special creation!