Exactly, UCA has always been relying on qualitative studies based on DNA similarity as well as anatomical similarity. It obviously need more work especially quantitatively as argued by the scientists themselves. When it is tested quantitatively, they found out that there might be flaws in the current model.
According to the Abstract of the reference you cited, it looks like another qualitative based study. It confirms nothing.
Nah, youre just another moronic self claimed scientific atheists lmao.
First of all, i never said they supports my claim, but they open possibilities. Get your understanding straight.
Second, their interest is the credibility of the an age old tree of life, the UCA model, not straight up the ancestry of human and chimp. Besides, even if you want to confirm the ancestry of human and chimp, you'll have to start from the basic level, which the single cell organisms, which is what they are doing.
"Things take process, but one thing for sure: If the UCA turns out to be wrong in the future, then there will be no certainty that human and chimp share common ancestry."
I thought this reply of mine would get to your head, but it looks like you can't understand this really simple sentence lol. Not my fault you have this poor understanding
