My goodness! Their critiques of your statements about evolution—such as with the chimp-human genomic similarities—border on the comical and pathological lying. Even with my past experiences with the Discovery Institute, I was stunned.
Here’s one of my favorites:
First, the high chimp-human genomic similarity was not predicted by common ancestry. No such prediction was made and no such prediction is required by common ancestry. Common ancestry would be just fine with very different levels of similarity from 98-99 percent. In fact, this high similarity makes no sense under evolution, for several of the reasons given above. Swamidass’s claim that this evidence is a stunning confirmation of common ancestry is utterly at odds with the science. It is in stark contrast to the scientific facts."
I found lots of Arguments from Personal Incredulity and an apparent assumption that simply restating their denials with repetitive sentences would somehow add to the weight of their argument.
I only skimmed but in that entire diatribe I noticed no mention of phylogenetic trees, except for one claim that those genome-based phylogenetic trees totally contradicted the phylogenetic trees published prior to genomic maps were available for comparison. [Even as a layperson with no professional background in genomics, I know that to be a lie.]
Now you know why I have to watch my blood pressure when dealing with this brand of ID advocates.