that’s all you’ve got as you ‘proof’? The bootstrap assumes Macroevolution is fact- not only that, it makes many seriously huge assumptions about events they have no knoweldge of in the past- as well the evidences differ greatly from what is inferred in biology and in the fossil records.
“Wong et al explain how researchers can fall into the trap by trusting algorithms that cannot bear the weight of inference placed on them:
A common theme in comparative genomics studies is a flow diagram, or chart, tracing the various steps and algorithms used during the analysis of a large number of genes. Flow charts can be quite sophisticated, with steps such as identifying orthologous gene sets, aligning the genes, and performing different statistical analyses on the resulting alignments. The key point, and a great practical difficulty in comparative genomics studies, is that the analyses must be repeated many times. The procedure, then, is largely automated, with scripting languages such as Perl or Python cobbling together individual programs that perform each step. In addition, many of the individual steps involve procedures originally developed in the evolutionary biology literature, to perform phylogeny estimation or to identify individual amino acid residues under the influence of positive selection. Statistical methods that until recently would have been applied to a single alignment, carefully constructed, are now applied to a large number of alignments, many of which may be of uncertain quality and cause the underlying assumptions of the methods to fail.”
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm
“The Hopeless Task of Building Evolutionary Trees
“Were you ever told in biology class that generating a phylogenetic tree from the raw data was mathematically impossible, and that no future civilization would ever overcome this barrier? Probably not, yet textbooks are replete with neat, authoritative-looking phylogenetic trees. So how do they determine them? By heuristic methods, which by translation, means guesswork, inference, trial-and-error, hunches and hope.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#darwin148
“What the geneticists infer from DNA analysis often disagrees strongly with what the biologists infer from comparative anatomy, and both differ strongly from the fossil record.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev1102.htm
I see nothign but more asumptions about past events which can’t be reproduced and studied.
I have posted to others previously that I will not participate in obfuscatory arguments.
I will, when I feel like it, post references to information. What you do with it is not my problem.