A friend reminds me of this 2004 paper on the busted molecular clock:
For almost a decade now, a team of molecular evolutionists has produced a plethora of seemingly precise molecular clock estimates for divergence events ranging from the speciation of cats and dogs to lineage separations that might have occurred ,4 billion years ago. Because the appearance of accuracy has an irresistible allure, non-specialists frequently treat these estimates as factual. In this article, we show that all of these divergence-time estimates were generated through improper methodology on the basis of a single calibration point that has been unjustly denuded of error. The illusion of precision was achieved mainly through the conversion of statistical estimates (which by definition possess standard errors, ranges and confidence intervals) into errorless numbers. By employing such techniques successively, the time estimates of even the most ancient divergence events were made tolook deceptively precise. For example, on the basis of just 15 genes, the arthropod–nematode divergence event was ‘calculated’ to have occurred 1167 6 83 million years ago (i.e. within a 95% confidence interval of ,350 million years). Were calibration and derivation uncertainties taken into proper consideration, the 95% confidence interval would have turned out to be at least 40 times larger (,14.2 billion years).
Personally, I blame the pop science press for much of this.
Am I just too idealistic about human nature? Maybe, but I think that many scientists would not pretend to certainty as much as they do, except for the sound bites propping up the media’s evolution myth – that emblem of complete trust in the Beard – a certainty which has nothing whatever to do with straightening out the tangles of life’s history.
Authors’ Graur and Martin’s quotation from Douglas Adams is most apt: ‘We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.’