[gore3000]

If the comparison had shown 55% concordance would he have been guilty or innocent? -me- You question makes no sense.

Of course it does that is why you have to insult. You (and evo 'scientists') are saying that a 55% concordance in a specially selected area of a protein (selected for concordance) proves anything. It does not. Horses have legs, men have legs that does not mean that they descended from each other, all it means is that for certain functions (such as walking or motion in the case of the proteins discussed) a certain structure is needed. As pointed out in Post #1174 (which you carefully ignore) amino acids have certain properties and you cannot achieve a function by random combinations of them. Your whole proposition is anti-science. The combinations have a reason, the proteins have a purpose and are constructed to achieve that purpose.

[general_re]

I generally ignore your posts because this is the kind of crap I can expect in return:

You (and evo 'scientists') are saying that a 55% concordance in a specially selected area of a protein (selected for concordance) proves anything.

Nobody is saying any such thing. Stop lying.