[decimon]

2) that the amount of DNA change that you might expect from 20,000 years divergence is actually 40,000 years worth of divergence (i.e. the DNA change is slower than expected).

I think it's saying that the DNA changes are faster than has been believed because there are more changes than has been believed. But it's hard to be sure with the condensed version.

[allmendream]

No, the amount of change is set - a measured difference between two species of common ancestry - or a measure of difference between “fossil” DNA and the DNA of its modern descendants.

For example one could see a difference in a particular ERV shared between dogs and wolves that is X% different - and that X% difference is assumed to cover the time that dogs have diverged from wolves. The X doesn't change, it is a measured amount (for those particular sequences).

What the research is attempting to change is the amount of TIME that it would take for an X% difference to form; they say that X% that would be 20,000 years should be 40,000 to 60,000 years.

That means that the RATE of change is one half to one third as rapid as previously expected; not twice or three times as fast - as is also maintained, despite the inherent contradiction.

As I said, somewhere between the actual science and the publication of this in the school paper; someone got confused.