[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Resetting the "molecular clock hypothesis"
i thought this mailing list's policy was not to dignify creationist BS with any
--- On Wed, 7/23/08, David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Resetting the "molecular clock hypothesis"
> To: "DML" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 8:07 PM
> > Riv Biol. 2008 Jan-Apr;101(1):93-108.
> Rivista di Biologia is a journal without peer-review that
> creationist attempts to imitate the scientific process. It
> can be safely
> ignored on that basis alone.
> > There exists a remarkable correlation between genetic
> distance as measured
> > by protein or DNA dissimilarity and time of species
> divergence as inferred
> > from fossil records. This observation has provoked the
> molecular clock
> > hypothesis. However, data inconsistent with the
> hypothesis have steadily
> > accumulated in recent years from studies of extant
> As usual, creationists are -- at best -- behind their times
> in their
> understanding of scientific knowledge. Even the
> ornithologists now
> understand that the molecular clock hypothesis holds only
> as a very, very
> crude approximation, that each clade, each gene, and lastly
> each base pair
> has its own speed of evolution.
> > Here the published DNA and protein sequences from
> ancient fossil specimens
> > were examined to see if they would support the
> molecular clock hypothesis.
> > The hypothesis predicts that ancient specimens cannot
> be genetically more
> > distant to an outgroup than extant sister species are.
> A very strict form of the molecular clock hypothesis would
> predict that. But
> why bother? We already know it is wrong. If I had been a
> reviewer on this
> manuscript, I'd have recommended rejection on the
> grounds that the author
> doesn't know what they're talking about. But, as
> mentioned, nobody was a
> > Also, two distinct ancient specimens cannot be
> genetically more distant
> > than their extant sister species are.
> Does that mean anything?
> > The findings here do not conform to these predictions.
> Neanderthals are
> > more distant to chimpanzees and gorillas than modern
> humans are. Dinosaurs
> > are more distant to frogs than extant birds are.
> Mastodons are more
> > distant to opossums than other placental mammals are.
> More distant to opossums than _any other_ placental mammals
> are? Was the
> damage to the sequence counted as difference, or what?
> > The genetic distance between dinosaurs and mastodons
> is greater than that
> > between extant birds and mammals. Therefore, while the
> molecular clock
> > hypothesis is consistent with some data from extant
> organisms, it has yet
> > to find support from ancient fossils.
> Which extant birds and which mammals?
> And what is this talk about distance anyway? Why not count
> instead of differences? Oh, right, that's because...
> > Far more damaging to the hypothesis than data from
> extant organisms, which
> > merely question the constancy of mutation rate, the
> study of ancient
> > fossil organisms here challenges for the first time
> the fundamental
> > premise of modern evolution theory that genetic
> distances had always
> > increased with time in the past history of life on
> Told you the author is a creationist: "Being ignorant,
> I believe that some
> unrealistic hypothesis is a fundamental premise of modern
> evolution theory,
> without which the theory would utterly collapse; this
> hypothesis is wrong
> (especially if my lack of understanding of the data is
> counted as evidence);
> therefore the theory of evolution is wrong; therefore the
> lack-of-theory of
> creationism is right; therefore Jesus. Praise the
> Lord!!!1!" (If you're
> bored, count the errors in the logic.)
> Any discussion of this should be kept offlist, in order to
> avoid useless
> discussions of creationism (as required by
> Please don't time me out just yet -- I'll be away
> from any computer from
> July 27th to August 9th anyway.