Let’s not forget the REST of htwe quote eh? Pitman said ““However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.” He then points to hte article showign this VERY FACT, reptiles, birds, and certain fish do indeed have different LHRH- Since reptiles, birds, and certain fish have diff LHRH just as p[itman showed- by linkign to hte article, are you goign to retract your accusation against him? The FACTS show that what pitman linked to supported his claim that reptiles, birds, and certain fish differ in LHRH- infact DOES support that claim- Cripes!
So let me get this straight: your contention is that when Pitman wrote
There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. Are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation.[15]he didn't mean the footnote to apply to the whole paragraph, or to the second sentence in the paragraph, but only to the third sentence in the paragraph? That seems ludicrous. Especially in light of the fact that the third sentence only talks about birds, reptiles, and fish. The only way his point in the final sentence ("the data does not match the classical theory")--the sentence to which the footnote is actually appended--makes sense is by comparison to the statement in the second sentence.
Or are we just supposed to take his word for the idea that mammalian and amphibian LHRH are identical? If the footnote doesn't apply to the whole paragraph, what is that assertion based on?