No, sorry.
First, Coulter claimed as fact something that Marks clearly presented as a "what if". There's no excusing that.
Furthermore, Coulter didn't even "look at the data". She at most glanced at the title of Marks's paper, didn't even look at the body of the paper *or* any data, then cluelessly presented a rhetorical number as a "fact" to her readers in order to airily blow off the entire field of DNA analysis, as if that somehow invalidates the vast wealth of data that is there.
Coulter had to do this because she had no desire or ability to deal with the actual data itself. She just had to find some way to giggle, make it sound like a ridiculous topic to her readers, then pretend that she had somehow demolished "the data" when she hadn't, followed by a flip of her hair and a sudden change of topic.
That's nothing remotely like "looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions". That is instead using the air-headed teenager's favorite method of dodging anything they would prefer not to have to deal with -- dismissively declaring, "that's stoopid!"
Coulter just laughed off the entire subject of DNA analysis and all of the vast amount of information it is producing in support of evolution and common descent by saying, "we have DNA kinda like daffodils too, isn't that just silly!"
No, Ann, it isn't silly, but your attempt to hand-wave away the vast amount we have learned from DNA in over half a century is beyond silly, it's deeply and cynically dishonest.
How do you know this?
Coulter had to do this because she had no desire or ability to deal with the actual data itself.
You're sure of her desires? I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject. But I s'pose discerning someone else's desires or inner motivations is, most of the time, pretty subjective.
Have a great day!