creationists side-stepping

Brad,I am the LAST person who can criticise punctuation. But some more commas would help. Also, you might want to give some explanation on the people, or at least the arguments they put forward (general point). You tend to advance a paragraph on some theory of someones that only a few of us have heard of, much less understand.Here's a paragraph I've just written for JP (not posted at time of writing).Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous, sampling error, incomplete data, mismatching method & genetic information, long branch attract, method limiltations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies, & explains why the phylogenies are incorrect. In fact, if your interested in molecular phylogeny, this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases, however, highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences, pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, nucleotide sequences, amino acid sequences, SINEs, LINEs, etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all, let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example, it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle, & as such is used by ALL life, so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acids for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences, then why don’t similar protein function having similar sequences?Here it is again, sans commas.Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous sampling error incomplete data mismatching method & genetic information long branch attract, method limitations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies & explains why the phylogenies are incorrect. In fact if your interested in molecular phylogeny this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases however highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences pseudogenes retroviral insertions nucleotide sequences amino acid sequences SINEs LINEs etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle & as such is used by ALL life so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acids for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences then why don’t similar protein function having similar sequences?It may make sense when you write it, but reading it is a different matter. I've noticed some mistakes of my own, but you get my drift Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.