I’m going to have to ask you to stop jumping around, changing the topic and moving goal posts. If you want to talk about cars, whales or histone modification then why don’t you start a new topic to do that?
why actually? according to this- even if fish and chimp have been closest from genetic prespective, we will need to say in this case that chimp is more closer to fish then human?
No, why would you think that? This has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard all day. When I say genetic evidence, I mean patterns of relatedness not overall similarity in one or two short sequences.
Think about this for a moment - it’s going to require some very basic logic.
Imagine a short four letter sequence that you inherit from your parents
Great Great Great grandparents: ATAG
Great Great grandparents: ATAG
Great grandparents: ATAG
Grandparents: ATAG
Parents: ATAG
You: ATAC
Does this imply that your parents are more closely related to your Great Great Great grandparents than they are to you just because they have an identical 3 letter sequence but you have one letter different?
Take a moment now to think about how drawing that conclusion would be ridiculous
This is how we know that you are more closely related to your parents: You share common mutations that others don’t
Great Great Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Great Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Great grandparents: ATAGAGAC
Grandparents: ATAGGGAC
Parents: ATAGGGAT
You: ATAGGGAT
Because you, your parents and your grandparents share a mutation, it’s likely that you form a clade.
Because you and your parents share another mutation that others don’t, it’s likely that you also form a subclade.
Do you understand the difference now between overall similarity and patterns of relatedness? Now apply this reasoning to the HAR1 region and you will see the fault in your logic.
so the 60 de novo may be the result of convergent pseudogenes
Read my responses to @johnZ where I explain how we know that these sequences were likely never genes to start with.