No, I’m claiming that the hypothetical Darwinian models of genetic history, from population genetics, which force fit the genetic evidence into their preconceived universal tree of common descent are a gross departure from what the actual genetic evidence is telling us, not to mention a gross oversimplification of the level of complexity being dealt with.
Right. So you’re saying that the modelled histories aren’t very good. But aren’t they still trying to model the histories?
