I read the link and the abstract. You appear to have made an enormous leap which has no basis in either source.
Moreover, it appears you cherry-picked from the LiveScience article and overlooked (?) this very important statement:
"“So although most of the human genome is indeed closest to the
chimpanzee genome on average, a sizeable minority, 15 percent, is in
fact closer to the gorilla, and another 15 percent is where gorilla and
chimpanzee are closer.”
So it seems that the authors made the very opposite of your claim. They said “most of the human genome is indeed closest to the chimpanzee genome on average,” You appear to have zoomed in on the 15% (ignoring the 85%) and pretended that it “overturned” nested hierarchies when it was said, in fact, to have been a MINORITY (15%.)
In other words, the relationships found were VERY MUCH CONSISTENT with what one would expect in the nested hierarchies which point to common descent! Your argument leads the reader to suspect that either you don’t understand the kinds of evidence which Common Descent would produce, or you are assuming that your readers won’t understand what types of genomic evidence would be produced by such evolutionary processes and, therefore, you assume it would convince them that Common Descent has been “disproven.”
Yet, EVEN IF the very selective excerpt hadn’t been a blatant quote-mine, to make the fantastic leap amazes me, so I’ll quote it again:
Wow! I almost got whiplash from the huge G-forces of that explosive leap to your conclusion. (Pilots taking off from aircraft carriers have the advantage of pressure suits to prevent excessive pooling of blood in the legs. I had no such chance to prepare myself.) Similar logic would claim that because my campfire produces smoke which drifts upwards, Newton was wrong about gravity!
You have proven one thing for sure: Quote-mining is always risky. There’s always a chance that a reader will take the time to read the cited source.
Great links, however. Thank you for posting them. Very interesting.