That sounds about right. The problem, however, is that we see correlations between human variation, and human-chimp divergence. If the differences between humans and chimps are usually important (in contradiction with neutral evolution), why are these also the most variable places among humans? Just as we expect from neutral evolution?
This is the type of data that ID has just ignored. This is such clear evidence of common descent, it is hard to take them seriously when they do even engage this data, or provide an alternate, mathematical explanation.
See here: Common Descent: Humans and Chimps / Mice and Rats - #28 by swamidass