One thing is certain you do not want to count indel divergence as autosomal segment divergence.
That's exactly what the authors of the chimp genome paper did.
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes,
five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature
It is clear now that secular scientists have caught up to the fact that a human chimp divergence of 1.5% is nonsense.
That is the divergence due to substitutions, and continues to be.
Is it because you think there is not enough indels to count? If that is your point, it is in direct contradiction to my citations (I have at this point provided 6) that implicitly added them to substitution rates.
It is the way that you add them together that is wrong. The authors of the peer reviewed papers do it correctly.
I have tried and failed to correct your perspective of what constitutes a site as it relates to mutation.
You have failed because you are wrong. One indel is one mutation. A 5 base indel is 1 mutation, not 5. A sequence with 20 bases has 20 sites where a mutation can occur.
You have repeatedly mixed up (u) and (k) in the calculation I was using. That is rate and percentage divergence.
What are the units for divergence?
I will, at this point, let you name the additional divergence you think is acceptable. If you claim it is zero, argue with the secular scientists who say that it is more than zero.
I have already discussed the mutation rate with you multiple times. If you are going to use the 5% divergence as measured by differences in bases then you need to use a mutation rate that incorporates the number of bases changed per generation. You aren't doing that. The mutation rate needs to be about 250 bases changed per generation. You are using 70.