On initial inspection, this seems to be, as I can understand it, though it's cloaked in a lot of technical jargon to make it less understandable to the layman, something it seems like they depended on, in the early arguments, a claim that non coding or junk DNA should be included in any study. That's not done in any comparison, and hasn't been for a very good reason. When you're comparing two species, they look at sets of genes that we know have basically the same function in both species, in other words, defining ones, like the genes for growing hands, eyes, etc. It makes absolutely no sense to compare genes that do nothing, functionally. Those are the junk heap of evolution, and not relative to the comparison. We have been separated and on different evolutionary paths for a long time, it makes no sense, unless you have a destination, are calling on all evidence, real or imagined, to get you there, to even include it. In Ebersberger's study they eliminated 22 percent of homologous sequence (or already known shared genes), right off the bat, that should be included in results for similarities, which would obviously skew the results. When they conclude that ?For about 23 of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. . from what I can tell, they are speaking of the results of their own study, their selected genome, one that eliminated 22 percent of known alike genes in the first place. Very deceptive. if true, a possible attempt to make that study say something it didn't. Some of the featured cited publications are only published in creationist organization publications, so they are far removed from being actually peer reviewed articles. If you read the complete actual study, of one of them that I was actually able to find online, the author stated he had the objective of debunking the similarities between the genomes, from the beginning, that's that pre determined destination I mentioned, and used various questionable methods to appear to, just as I have claimed about creationists from the start. I'd be interested to know how that study was received professionally, if at all. In all, on a cursory examination, it appears to be typical creationist fodder, starting with a destination, and weaseling whatever they can, to try to shoehorn the science to fit their religious box world view, and ignoring anything that would cast doubt on their destination. It's not science, it's religion.