Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Design of Life: Molecular clock – right twice a day?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

2006 and 2007 have been years in which a number of key science papers addressed things we know – that ain’t so. One story is the serious challenges to the long contested “molecular clock” theory.

[ … ]

In the science literature, many adjustments are offered to make the fossil record and molecular data match. Of course, some adjustment is certainly inevitable, but after a while a question arises. One can live with a clock that is routinely ten minutes slow. But if it is variably slow, slower at some times than others, there may come a point when one asks, why consult a clock anyway? Or, more to the point, should this device properly be called a clock?

Read the rest here.

Comments
ari-freedom, "a copyright notice…to show that the design wasn’t copied?" No, a copyright notice to show that the design was designed -- the signature of the designer. I see the pattern in the Cytochrome C as the equivelant of the patterns that are being sent to outer-space (prime numbers, etc.) to indicate that the signal is from an intelligent, rather than random source. Just read the book. It certainly is one of the most important ID books out there.bFast
December 27, 2007
December
12
Dec
27
27
2007
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
a copyright notice...to show that the design wasn't copied?ari-freedom
December 27, 2007
December
12
Dec
27
27
2007
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
On the topic of molecular clocks, let me bring up three additional puzzles: 1 - There was recently a report of 250 million year old bacteria that was reconstituted. My understanding is that this bacteria seriously challenges the molecular clock hypothesis because genes do not show the 250 million years of ticks that should be in there. Even though this is the product of multiple finds, and careful varification, the conclusion drawn is that there must have been contamination with modern bacteria. 2 - Hoyle points out that the molecular clock hypothesis is serously challenged by ultra-conserved genes. If a gene is ultra-conserved (99% identical in all vertabrates, for instance) then extrapolating the molecular clock back in time would suggest that these things had an enormous lifespan. 3 - in "Evidence, a Theory in Crisis" Michael Denton renders an intriguing discussion of the Cytochrome C gene. This gene renders an intriguing map of the tree of life. It is my understanding that the molecular clock hypothesis was developed to explain this "perfect" tree in the Cytochrome C. If the molecular clock hypothesis is invalid, the only other reasonable explanation for the pattern found in the Cytochrome C is that it is intentional -- a copyright notice.bFast
December 27, 2007
December
12
Dec
27
27
2007
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
From David Tyler's commentary:
The authors are concerned to find out "how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central, especially to paleoanthropology." This they do with an incisiveness rarely appearing on the printed page of refereed journals.
But not so rare in alot of other places. Does this mean it's now "scientifically" legitimate to criticize Darwinism in this area?
This is a paper that will disturb the Darwinists, but it will offer encouragement to all who want to see less ideology in evolutionary thinking and who want to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Isn't that what ID proponents have been saying for years? I suppose Schwartz and Maresca are now going to be accused of being creationists. And let's not forget to fire whoever allowed this paper into a peer-reviewed journal.dacook
December 27, 2007
December
12
Dec
27
27
2007
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply