A few years back, Andrew C was convinced he had found an anomaly that would bring evolution down. He'd found a gene which looked to be more similar in chickens and humans than it was in mice and humans. He'd actually learned to use BLAST and compare sequences: very impressive, given that very few creationists do their own research. At the time, I didn't know how to use any of these tools, and was comparing sequences by hand; but indeed, the three genes were as he said they were. Anyway, after some digging around, I discovered he was using the wrong mouse gene. There was a second, more distantly related homolog on the X-chromosome, IIRC. When you found the right mouse gene, indeed mice and humans looked like they'd diverged after the two had separated from chickens.
Instead of learning the right lesson: that by, and large, if there's a well established theory and you find what looks like a significant anomaly, it's most likely you made a mistake, he's instead convinced that evolution has immunized itself against such anomalies. That's a shame. One should always be able to admit one's errors.
Congratulations! I admire your initiative.
See, that is your Darwinian logic. I stated no such thing. Your errant mind reading produced that result. I pointed out what I saw, and I saw a problem. Many other people do the same.