[AndyJackson]

The rest of the link makes nothing clear. It is written in the usual conspiratorial style of scientific explication - wherein essential facts are left out, things smoothed over, details that are known to everyone in the field are asserted to be unknown, and criticisms are suppressed.

The underlying problem is a hard problem in computational biology. With the state of computing in 1987 it would have been absurdly hard. With the million fold increase in the speed and power of computers from then until now, what was absurdly hard has become routine, and sifting through a billion trees is just about trivial.

Try looking up "parsimony dna mutation computation" or some such on google and write me a summary of the top 4 mathematical papers (published in the last 5 years) that you find on the subject.

[count-your-change]

That's what references are for. The mDNA dating doesn't work and your comments about the link don't change that.

So here's what you must do. Write an 87 page paper (APA style) on (1) How mutation rates are determined, (2) How a billion trees means twisting the knobs a little bit will get any result desired.

And no garbage from Talkorigins or atheist sites or quotes from bloggers.