I would wait before jumping behind this one. The study was not peer-reviewed, and the only peer-reviewed study said that it was highly unlikely that it had been altered. Peer-reviewed is the only way you can be sure there isn't something else behind the study. Still worth paying attention to. The wonderful thing about science is that these scientists could've legitimately found something missed, but I will say that it would be a stretch for a peer-reviewed study published in Nature (the most accurate journal in existence by the numbers) to miss something so obvious, which they also specifically addressed. Also, there is no reason to believe that the lack of mutations (assuming that is true) suggests that it was already "fully adapted" to humans. That's...just not really how it works. "Strange" findings, to say the least.