“Although the study is just beginning, interesting patterns are beginning to emerge that challenge the standard evolutionary model of human origins. First, it looks as though all apes and monkeys contain significant portions of their genes that are very similar to parts of human genes. However, the primate genes also contain significant sections that are specific to their kind (e.g., chimp, gorilla, orangutan, etc.) that are not found in human genes.”
They make a claim that the data is still emerging. The genome wide comparison you referenced did NOT support this claim - that there were “significant sections that are specific to their kind” i.e. non human primates “that are not found in human genes”.
They allege a conspiracy theory - then make a claim - and back it up with nothing except that the study is just beginning but that “interesting patterns are beginning to emerge”.
No doubt the EXACT patterns they went in looking to find.
I agree that the claim of data supporting Biblical kinds was not documented, they seem to be indicating that they have more information to support this big claim coming in the next article. So your complaint about that is not unfounded. They need to produce the evidence.
However, I think they did support that the figures (National Geographic said it was 96% in 2005) commonly cited for similarity between humans and apes (or at least chimps) is inaccurate precisely because all of the data was not being disclosed. And now, being disclosed, it turns out the similarity is conservatively 75% or less — possibly far less. If true, that discrepency represents either a conspiracy or major blunder on the part of those who previously published the higher figure.
Do you accept that the similarity between men and chimps is far less than previously thought? If not, why? If so, what makes you convinced there is complete enough data to accuately say chimp and gorilla DNA are less similar?