I’ll reply over here about Jeanson since you made a thread for your review and my comments are in response to that.
The paper you cited mentions the strait HAS been a historical migratory route. The obvious implication from your words was that Jeanson thinking there was any migratory route across the Red Sea is ridiculous, when it is clearly not. I also mentioned you skipping the figure from the book, since you mentioned line-drawing as if there was no historical inference at all.
So…Dan’s mention of Jeanson’s conflation of phylogeny and Genesis 10 genealogy was one other place where I thought, if Dan had any creationists in his audience, he really lost them there. They’d be scratching their heads, what? Lol, how can he be criticizing that? 
And the only thing I can think of is that as undergrads,
biology students must get drilled into them that nodes on phylogenies are not individuals and are populations (because we are all used to family trees and want to think that way all). And of course this makes sense for phylogenies based on phenotype or autosomal DNA. But I see no validity in using this as criticism for phylogenies of uniparental DNA that have multiple mutations per generation where the substitution rate is going to be the same as the mutation rate in the ancient branches. The creationist with no science background is thinking to himself, “Dan, I really didn’t think that only those men were at the tower of Babel, I kinda figured there were populations with women and kids too.” 
It’s getting late, so I gotta respond to more another day.