A very bad excuse. My point in support of what andrewc was showing does not require reading the entire thread:
the central point of his argument [andrewc's]- that the number of mutations between species does not agree with the evolutionary 'tree of life'. In fact, [that the gene in question may not be essential] it makes his case stronger because evolutionists do not have the excuse of saying that it would destroy functioning to change the gene and thus mutations are restricted in such a gene. In fact, evolutionists often claim that the best places to find mutations is where there is no function (or no important function) for the genes involved. So I really do not see how this (if your assertion above is correct) in any way contradicts andrew's point.
You really should have read the whole thread. When we compared the homologous stretches of active (X-linked) s4 protein, there was excellent agreement; no difference between pig and human; four changes between humans and chickens.
Pigs do not have a y-linked S4, so it's unclear to me what you propose to compare it with. The human gene presumably arose from a duplication of the x-linked protein, but that duplication might have occured before pigs and humans diverged.
But if you'd like to say that because human cytochrome C is more similar to chicken cytochrome C than it is to pig hexokinase, that invalidates evolution, well, it's no less logical than most of your other posts.
Incidentally, a recent National Geographic has a very nice article on genetics and the 'tree of life'.