Monday, June 15, 2015

Evolution Makes No Sense on This Molecular Clock Problem

This One is a Mess

Evolutionary thought did not begin nor end with Charles Darwin. To be sure Darwin was its most important exponent, but evolutionary thinking goes back centuries before 1859 when Darwin first published his book on evolution, and it continued to develop long after Darwin. For example, for all his theorizing Darwin had little idea how biological variation—a crucial, fundamental component of evolutionary theory—actually occurs. How do species change to begin with? About half a century later evolutionists constructed neoDarwinism which added to Darwin’s theory the idea that random genetic mutations provided the needed biological variation which occasionally hit upon improvements and would be preserved via natural selection. Indeed, according to evolution, whales, oak trees, and humans all must have been created by an incredibly long series of random mutations. The theory did not work very well for a number of reasons. For example, mutations don’t slowly add up to arrive at complex biological structures and mechanisms, and biological change is rapid and directed, not slow and random. Those are merely two of a great many false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. One of them is the concept of a molecular clock.

Given the evolutionary (neoDarwinian) hypothesis that evolution is driven by a steady diet of random mutations, evolutionists believed that they could compute evolutionary time by counting mutations. In other words, the number of DNA differences, for example in a particular gene, between two different species could be used to compute how long it has been since they diverged from a common ancestor.

This notion of a molecular clock became extremely popular and certain amongst evolutionists. Study after study used genetic differences to map out the supposed evolutionary tree. But this area of work eventually ran into substantial contradictions and other problems which you can read about here. Simply put, the data did not fit the theory.

A recent article entitled “DNA mutation clock proves tough to set” in the top science publication in the world, continued to reinforce the dramatic failure of this evolutionary notion. The article focuses on the mutation rate—a fundamental parameter in the molecular clock—in humans. Simply put, the mutation rate can be estimated (i) from theory-neutral measurements or (ii) from theory-laden measurements, and the two don’t match. In fact, they’re not even close. They differ by a factor of two.

The theory-laden measurements are based on evolutionary theory. The theory-neutral measurements do not entail evolutionary thinking. In other words, making measurements based on evolutionary theory leads to problems. The resulting DNA mutation rates are not even close to what we can measure more directly, free from theoretical assumptions.

As is often the case, these discrepancies between the evidence and the theory leave evolutionists unsure and of differing opinions. As one evolutionist admitted:

The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us, It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.

Given problems such as this, evolutionists’ insistence that their idea is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt reveals that is isn’t about the science.

57 comments:

  1. So Dr. Hunter, do I understand this correctly? ToE requires one number, and the actual scientifically calculated number is embarrassingly bad and uncertain???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus:

      Well, the ToE requires one number, and the actual scientifically calculated number is much smaller (about half). So evolutionists have to make up explanations, such as that the mutation rate used to be much faster, but has now slowed down. Such explanations have no basis in fact, but are simply there to save the theory.

      Delete
    2. There isn't a ToE. Darwin tried but his wasn't scientific.

      Delete
    3. Evolutionism cannot account for DNA- strange, eh. And not only that no one has demonstrated that changes to DNA can produce all of the physical changes required for universal common descent to be true.

      Delete
    4. The "ToE" does not require one number. We know that mutation rates change over time and depending on the location in the genome.

      For exemple, a highly expressed gene that encode vital functions would have a mutation rate much lower that one in a non expressed region of the genome.

      It's not new.
      You even talk about it there :

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.ch/2012/05/evolutionists-caught-againbut-they.html

      What are the prediction of ID for the mutation rate ?
      I'm quite interested in the answer. Maybe I will get lucky and somebody will try to answer a biological questions through the ID prism.
      Maybe.

      Delete
    5. There isn't any ToE. BTW no one can answer any biological questions through an unguided evolutionary prism.

      Delete
    6. Calamity:

      For exemple, a highly expressed gene that encode vital functions would have a mutation rate much lower that one in a non expressed region of the genome.

      It's not new.
      You even talk about it there :

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.ch/2012/05/evolutionists-caught-againbut-they.html


      Ummm, yes, but not approvingly. The fact that under evolution we are forced to conclude that evolution somehow optimized the mutation rate, via some unknown mechanism, do not help. It is just another example of this same problem.

      Delete
  2. What Mr Hunter does not talk about ( in the Nature piece) :
    Researchers tried to put a number on the human mutation rate even before they knew that genetic information is encoded in DNA. In the 1930s, pioneering geneticist J. B. S. Haldane came up with a good estimate by measuring how the mutations responsible for haemophilia appeared in extended families.

    Isn't it wonderful ?

    Maybe ID could help determine a mutation rate ?

    ID postulate that there is no macro evolution. At least ID could come up with an estimate of mutation rate for micro evolution ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ID is OK with macro-evolution.

      Delete
    2. How are you defining "macro-evolution"?

      Delete
    3. Probably as you define it. Changes that do not create a completely different species.

      So how is ID helping us determine how fast or slow would a bacteria adapt to a given environnement ? Like in experimental evolution experiment ?

      Delete
    4. I don't define it that way. Macroevolution would be the production of new body plans requiring new body parts.

      Evolutionism cannot tell us how fast or slow an organism can adapt to its environment.

      Delete
    5. My bad I used the definition of micro evolution, brain fart.

      Evolutionism cannot tell us how fast or slow an organism can adapt to its environment. Can ID help us on that ?

      Delete
    6. ID helps us determine if something is intelligently designed or not.

      Delete
  3. The first time I encountered the molecular clock horse pucky was in Denton's "Evolution a theory in crisis". He discussed the "too perfect" genetic tree that is revealed in the cytochrome C gene. Recently I read a study that said that it consistently takes 3 million years for species to diverge. This, of course, is a number that feels very comfortable to the "neutral drift" crowd.

    However, neither of these events factor in the feature of all animals that they use germ cells to generate the next generation. As the germ is produced very soon after conception, there are very few duplication events per generation. This should cause the rapidly reproducing animals like fruit flies to diverge much more rapidly than humans with 20 years per generation. For ToE to be correct,
    this effect should show up in both the cytochrome C and in the average divergence rate of species.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't see where the huge problem for evolution is here. One group estimated an "average" mutation rate for the human/chimp lineage by comparing various stretches of DNA between the two species, and knowing how long ago they diverged (approx 5 million years ago, if my memory serves me correctly). This comparison cannot make any prediction about whether or not the mutation rate is constant over this time period.

    The more recent studies are looking at mutation rates over a few generations, the longest being the comparison of a 45,000 year old human DNA to modern DNA. The more recent estimates are roughly one half that estimated by the human/chimp comparison.

    Now, if I have done my math correctly (no guarantee since I have already had to delete my comment twice to correct calculation errors), we are trying to compare mutation rates from the most recent 0.005% of generations since the chimp/human divergence to the "average" mutation rate over this entire period (1% in the case of the comparison with the 450,000 year old DNA). This assumes a generation time of 15 years, probably a high estimate.

    Trying to draw any conclusions by comparing mutation rates over 1% of the time scale to the total sum of mutations over the entire time frame is risky at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what has changed? A new DNA code? No. New DNA replication process? No. A restructured genome? No. Different cell design? No. A new cell division process? No.

      Yes, sure, no one can rule out the possibility that the mutation rate in the human lineage mysteriously halved even though replication, division, the genome architecture, etc., did not undergo any radical change. As usual, evolution can always hide behind the "yeah, but we don't know for sure" excuse.

      What we do know, however, is that the data which we do have on the subject contradicts the theoretical value, for no reason aside from speculation that, "gee, the mutation rate must have dramatically shifted." Possible? Sure. But we have no scientific evidence that it happened.

      Delete
    2. But you are also trying to compare different methods of estimating the mutation rates; one direct and the other indirect. With the one you also have to assume that the mutation rates and generation lengths along both the human and chimp lineages were the same.

      I am definite not an expert in this field but it seems to me that there are large complicating factors (and assumptions) in the procedures used for both estimates.

      But, again, you haven't explained why this is a problem for evolution.

      Delete
    3. Acartia:

      But you are also trying to compare different methods of estimating the mutation rates; one direct and the other indirect. With the one you also have to assume that the mutation rates and generation lengths along both the human and chimp lineages were the same.

      All good points, though the generation lengths can be corrected for.


      I am definite not an expert in this field but it seems to me that there are large complicating factors (and assumptions) in the procedures used for both estimates.

      Well evolutionists have routinely used these sorts of data, assuming much greater accuracy than the level of this contradiction.


      But, again, you haven't explained why this is a problem for evolution.

      Because the predicted mutation rate, based on the theory of evolution, is a factor of two off from the measured value, whereas evolutionists have assumed much greater accuracy than this.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. That's a strawman again Mr Hunter. There is no such thing as a "unique mutation rate predicted by the theory".

      You don't even provide this number, because there is no such thing. You can't predict a rate, you can just calculate it using data.

      Delete
  7. "But we have no scientific evidence that it happened."

    Who needs scientific evidence when a well told story will do just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Because the predicted mutation rate, based on the theory of evolution, is a factor of two off from the measured value, whereas evolutionists have assumed much greater accuracy than this."

    But the measured rate is based on less than 1% of the time span, and that at one of the extreme ends of the time span.

    If you were given the average annual temperature for 2013, 2014 and 2015, would you have confidence in using this to predict the average annual temperature from 2013 to 2313?

    By the way, editing a comment of someone to change its context is even worse than the crap that Barry pulls. I was hoping that you would be open to honest and open discussion. I was obviously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:

      By the way, editing a comment of someone to change its context is even worse than the crap that Barry pulls. I was hoping that you would be open to honest and open discussion. I was obviously wrong.

      What editing of what comment are you referring to? If this comment is directed to me, and I edited one of your comments, that would have been by mistake.

      Delete
    2. Acartia:

      But the measured rate is based on less than 1% of the time span, and that at one of the extreme ends of the time span.

      If you were given the average annual temperature for 2013, 2014 and 2015, would you have confidence in using this to predict the average annual temperature from 2013 to 2313?


      Yes, agreed. But mutations rates are different than temperatures. This would be a good argument if there was good reason to suspect that the mutation rate would undergo such significant swings. And perhaps they did. I’m not saying we can rule that out. But typically evolutionists use these data with much greater accuracy / reliability in mind. When that fails, then yes, they can always say, “Gee, I guess the mutation rate in this particular gene or chromosome or lineage or time period” underwent some wild swings. Such tautologies do not resolve the evidential problem. You don’t get to erase contradictions just by making up stories. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation to be found, and perhaps it will be resolved. But we’re talking about reality, not some future hope. 45,000 years is an incredibly long baseline over which to measure a mutation rate. Statitsically speaking it is a very solid result. There’s not much uncertainty at that point, and we would have to have some reason to suspect a significant, systematic change in the mutation rate over the 6 MYR period. We don’t have that.

      Delete
    3. "45,000 years is an incredibly long baseline over which to measure a mutation rate. Statitsically speaking it is a very solid result."

      Yes, it is a long time from the perspective of a single lifetime. But it is less than 1% of the minimum number of generations that were the basis of the earlier estimate. Statistically speaking, 1% is NOT a very solid result. Especially when it is limited to one end of the time frame being looked at. If the same 1% were distributed in smaller chunks throughout the 5 million years involved, it would be far more statistically sound. But it isn't.

      Delete
    4. Imagine a physicist doing some experiments and obtaining data that do not match the theoretical predictions. Next imagine that the physicist does not have any obvious reason to think that the discrepancy could be due to typical fluctuations. In other words, the discrepancy is pretty significant, compared to typical fluctuations. Is it possible there may be some explanation which could save the theory? Sure, of course. But the result, as it stands, is not good for the theory.

      Delete
  9. "Imagine a physicist doing some experiments and obtaining data that do not match the theoretical predictions."

    But what "predictions" are you talking about with respect to mutation rates? Based solely on a comparison of chimp and human DNA, and having a good knowledge of when the two lineages split, what predictions were made? There are only two significant numbers that can come from a study such as this:

    1) There are X number of differences (mutations presumably) from the time of the split until now, along both lineages.

    2) The AVERAGE mutation rate per generation was Y.

    But giving an "average" mutation rate is not making any claims about whether these rates are consistent. It can't. For example, if we knew the age of death of every human who died over the last 5000 years, the AVERAGE would probably be around thirty years (or less). Based on this, can you predict the average age of death for people who died over the last five years. Of course not. And the fact that the average age of death over the last five years is probably double that of the average age of death over the last 5000 years does not mean that there is a problem with ether estimate; the only conclusion you can draw is that extrapolation can be dangerous. But we already know this.

    The idea of a molecular clock is worthwhile examining. If we find that there is some level of consistency over time with the rate of mutation, we would have a valuable tool. Even if we find that the uncertainty around this rate is high, it can still be of value; it just means that the uncertainty around any predictions (or conclusions) will be that much higher.

    But whether or not the mutation rate is consistent does not have any impact on evolution at all. Why would it? The only thing that would have an impact on evolution would be to find no mutations at all over time. This would eliminate a significant source of genetic variation, variation that IS predicted and necessary for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. W S:

      I'm not able to speak to this whole molecular clock discussion and I doubt I'll find the time to learn much more about it. What I found fascinating is your argument for inconclusiveness.

      "...the only conclusion you can draw is that extrapolation can be dangerous."

      I've made this very same argument a number of times only to be told by evolutionists that there is absolutely no problem extrapolating large scale change from adaptive change.

      Curious.

      Delete
  10. "I've made this very same argument a number of times only to be told by evolutionists that there is absolutely no problem extrapolating large scale change from adaptive change."

    My only point is that extrapolations must be made with care and caution. Generally, the larger the extrapolation (e.g., the one I detailed above about mutation rates) the larger the potential error.

    Extrapolating large scale changes from small scale changes would be questionable if we were doing it blind. But we aren't. The extrapolations are supported by the fossil record, DNA comparisons, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, etc., etc.

    This being said, it is still an extrapolation and assumptions must be continuously challenged. Which is what Cornelius is doing here. If the mutation rate is very low, and constant over time and over different lineages (and assuming that mutations are the only source of genetic variation, which is not exactly true) we would eventually run out of the time necessary for evolution as we currently understand it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William Spearshake:

      My only point is that extrapolations must be made with care and caution. Generally, the larger the extrapolation (e.g., the one I detailed above about mutation rates) the larger the potential error.

      Such as in the following example?

      Similarly professor Pamela Bjorkman states that a mutating virus is “evolution at work” and that “In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale.” [2]

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/professor-is-scandalized-evolutionists.html


      Extrapolating large scale changes from small scale changes would be questionable if we were doing it blind. But we aren't. The extrapolations are supported by the fossil record, DNA comparisons, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, etc., etc.

      Yes, we are not doing it blind. And no, such extrapolations are not supported by “the fossil record, DNA comparisons, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, etc., etc.” You apparently are unfamiliar with the science. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. The evidence shows that such extrapolations are not warranted. See for example:

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/

      Delete
  11. "The evidence shows that such extrapolations are not warranted. See for example"

    You linked to a list of what you claim to be problems with evolution. Please point to the one that says that a non constant mutation rate is a problem for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:

      Keep in mind that that link was provided in response to the claim that there is a whole bunch of other evidence that warrants extrapolating large scale changes from small scale changes.

      This is a very common response from evolutionists. It goes like this: Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact. You point out an evidence that contradicts evolution. They response that, "Well, there's there is all this *other* evidence." The evidence is always somewhere else. So, that link points out that all that *other* evidence, in fact, contradicts evolution.

      Delete
    2. But why don't we address them one at a time. Let's start with the one where a variable mutation rate would be a problem for evolution. This seems reasonable since this is the point if your OP.

      Delete
    3. No, the point of the OP was not that variable mutation rates are a problem for evolution. The point was that the human mutation rate, as measured assuming evolution is true, is significantly different than the direct measurements.

      Delete
    4. Acartia:

      So I stole some time and read a little more. Here's how I understand the significance of the molecular clock.

      As recently as 2008, an article in nature (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-molecular-clock-and-estimating-species-divergence-41971) states that the molecular clock is "an essential tool in many areas of evolutionary biology". If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it's not so very essential after all.

      I'm a lay person in evolutionary studies and this isn't a typical topic so it's not something that would normally peak my interest. But please explain how it can be heralded as essential one day and poo-poo'd just a few years later. What reason should anyone have for taking science seriously if this is how it works?

      To me it's not as important whether or not this is "essential" as whether or not evolutionists can be trusted to be honest about it. I haven't heard any kind of mea culpa which is a normal response when someone makes such a strong statement then has to retract it.

      So the reason this is such a problem for evolution, in my mind, is the "evolution is never wrong" attitude. It's a prediction that was lauded as a part of the "mountain of evidence" proving evolution is fact then suddenly evolution doesn't need it and only offers "it never did" as explanation.

      That's what I got from the OP.

      Delete
  12. "No, the point of the OP was not that variable mutation rates are a problem for evolution. The point was that the human mutation rate, as measured assuming evolution is true, is significantly different than the direct measurements."

    No, you assumed that the average mutation rate estimated from a comparison between human and chimp DNA over a 5 million year time frame would be the same as that measured over the last 1% of the same time frame. It doesn't apply to average temperatures, average radiation levels, average human life spans, average CO2 levels, average ozone levels, average...OK, you get my point. Why would we expect mutation rates, which we know are affected by environmental factors, which vary over time, to be any different? Your logic doesn't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, you get my point. Why would we expect mutation rates, which we know are affected by environmental factors, which vary over time, to be any different? Your logic doesn't make any sense.

    Yes, I do get your point, but it undercuts what evolutionists have been saying all along. You reasoning renders the very premise of a molecular clock invalid, for the mutation rates can be all over the map due to contingent events that we can never know about. See it always goes like this. You point out an evidential inconsistency, and you are told that it doesn't matter because contingent reasons X, Y or Z can explain away the problem. What evolutionists don't admit is that this undercuts the original claims. When the evidence fits it proves out evolution, and when it doesn't then you have contingencies to fill the gap.

    ReplyDelete
  14. bFast: However, neither of these events factor in the feature of all animals that they use germ cells to generate the next generation. As the germ is produced very soon after conception, there are very few duplication events per generation. This should cause the rapidly reproducing animals like fruit flies to diverge much more rapidly than humans with 20 years per generation. For ToE to be correct,
    this effect should show up in both the cytochrome C and in the average divergence rate of species.


    That is not quite correct. Females generally produce their eggs during early development, but male gametes are produced throughout the male's life, so the number of replications varies.

    Consider a mouse. The zygote replicates about 50 times to produce the gamete, which then produces offspring in about 100 days, the generation time. This is about the same rate of replication as yeast. While the molecular clock was discovered phenomenologically, neutral theory explains the molecular clock.

    Cornelius Hunter: You reasoning renders the very premise of a molecular clock invalid, for the mutation rates can be all over the map due to contingent events that we can never know about. See it always goes like this.

    But the clock isn't all over the place. Again, the clock is phenomenological, and is largely reliable across most taxa. Nor is the rate completely chaotic, but falls within certain ranges. It isn't completely reliable, so it has to be crosschecked against other forms of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel:

      But the clock isn't all over the place. Again, the clock is phenomenological, and is largely reliable ...

      "As one scientist concluded, GPDH and SOD taken together leave us 'with no predictive power and no clock proper.'"

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-molecular-clock-keeps-evolutionary-time

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter: "As one scientist concluded, GPDH and SOD taken together leave us 'with no predictive power and no clock proper.'"

      Whenever you see a quote on an ID site with only a few actual words within the quote marks, one should look for the original source. See Ayala, Molecular clock mirages, BioEssays 1999.

      Let's start with the abstract: "The conclusion is that molecular evolution is dependent on the fickle process of natural selection. But it is a time-dependent process, so that accumulation of empirical data often yields an approximate clock, as a consequence of the expected convergence of large numbers."

      So the problem is natural selection! What will that Darwin come up with next! So we have an approximate clock. Anyway, does the author think we should toss the molecular clock? No.

      "I am not, however, willing to propose that we give up altogether the molecular clock. There are many evolutionary issues concerning both timing and topological relationships between species for which molecular sequence data provide the best, if not the only dependable evidence... If there is light in the molecular clock horizon, it must ultimately be obtained by combining data for several genes, as many as possible. As with travelers between cities, the larger the number taken into account, the more likely it is that average time and distance will be correlated."

      Delete
    3. Evolutionist can't toss the clock because it's part of other evolutionist majic formula for other explanations

      Delete
    4. Zachriel:

      Whenever you see a quote on an ID site with only a few actual words within the quote marks, one should look for the original source.

      Which is why I provided the link which gives a background discussion of the problem. So no, it wasn’t merely a “quote on an ID site.” The link explains more about the failed prediction.


      Anyway, does the author think we should toss the molecular clock? No.

      Not the point, and irrelevant. The point is that the prediction failed and as a consequence evolutionists have to construct all kinds of contingent explanations.

      Here is another quote from the paper:


      I am not, however, willing to propose that we give up altogether the molecular clock.

      Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Not willing to give up altogether—very impressive.


      There are many evolutionary issues concerning both timing and topological relationships between species for which molecular sequence data provide the best, if not the only dependable evidence …

      Again, this is not a ringing endorsement. The fact that the molecular sequence data are sometimes the best data available to the evolutionist does not fix the problem or resolve the false prediction.

      Delete
    5. Evolutionist can't toss the clock because it's part of other evolutionist majic formula for other explanations

      Delete
  15. The major factors known to affect the molecular clock are metabolic rate, body size, and generation time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cornelius: "You reasoning renders the very premise of a molecular clock invalid, for the mutation rates can be all over the map due to contingent events that we can never know about."

    Not invalid. Cautionary. But even if the molecular clock were shown to be completely useless as a research tool (highly unlikely, but possible), how would this have any impact on evolution? Evolutionary theory does not predict that a usable molecular clock must exist. One is not contingent in any way on the other. However, evolution is contingent on mutations. If you can show that mutations do not occur, or that their rate, over time, is too low to account for the observed changes, then you would have an argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William Spearshake:


      But even if the molecular clock were shown to be completely useless as a research tool (highly unlikely, but possible),

      No, that is not the problem.


      how would this have any impact on evolution? Evolutionary theory does not predict that a usable molecular clock must exist.

      Yes it does.

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-molecular-clock-keeps-evolutionary-time

      Delete
  17. Cornelius Hunter: Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    It's your citation!

    Cornelius Hunter: The point is that the prediction failed and as a consequence evolutionists have to construct all kinds of contingent explanations.

    Predictions fail all the time in science, otherwise it would mean we already have the answers.

    William Spearshake: Evolutionary theory does not predict that a usable molecular clock must exist.

    Cornelius Hunter: Yes it does.

    No. It is not entailed in the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. It is entailed in ideas concerning molecular evolution, which has changed in response to investigation.

    Furthermore, your own citation indicates that the molecular clock is approximately correct in most cases, but that it's *natural selection* that often causes the clock to speed up or slow down, depending on the molecule under consideration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    2. Virgil, thank you for participating. You constantly reinforce by perception of the intelligence of ID proponents.

      Delete
    3. Willy Dickshaker, you constantly reinforce by perception of the dishonesty and cowardice of evolutionists.

      Well done.

      Delete
    4. z: "your own citation indicates that the molecular clock is approximately correct in most cases, but that it's *natural selection* that often causes the clock to speed up or slow down, depending on the molecule under consideration. "

      J No, Z. The indication is that the author believes,, without inductive evidence, that natural selection explains the disparity between the different measurements of a putative UCA molecular clock. UCA itself is merely a hypothesis without inductive evidence. For there is no explanation for any such history. You really don't get deduction.

      Delete
  18. The idea of a molecular clock was proposed as a tool for research. And it has been used quite effectively, although it must be interpreted with caution.

    You have still not demonstrated that evolution predicts the need for a usable molecular clock. And by usable, I mean one in which the mutation rates are either relatively constant over time, or in which the factors affecting these rates are reasonably well understood and can be accounted for in the measurements made. It is the latter that is employed by researchers today. It is not a perfect tool but it is usable.

    But I still fail to see why the lack of a predictable mutation rate (i.e., effective molecular clock) would cast any doubt on the validity of evolution. As I mentioned, evolution is not contingent on a usable molecular clock. With regard to evolution, the only thing that evolution is contingent on is the existence of mutations. The way in which the mutations arise (i.e., constant rate over time, vastly variable rates, etc.) will likely have a huge impact on the manner and speed at which evolution occurs, and on the rates of extinction, but evolution itself will still proceed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionism is nothing more than contingent serendipity. And that is one reason why it is unscientific.

      Delete