=========================================================================
Studies from comparative molecular biology are NOT consistent
with the predictions of Darwinism. One observes an almost uniform
equidistance between the amino acid sequences of any homologous
protein within any taxonomic group when measured with respect
to any Outside Taxonomic Unit (OTU). One has only to consult
the Dayhoff Altas of Protein Function and Structure to see this.
Motoo Kimura explained this phenomenon within the Darwinist
paradigm by suggesting that most genetic mutations are neutral
and that an organism that has remained morphologically unchanged
for a long period of time has undergone just as much genetic
mutation as all other lines of descent regardless of the amount
of adaptive transformation. This is known as the molecular clock
hypothesis and it is not a result of any PREDICTION of Darwinism.
It is an attempt to salvage Darwinism from potential falsification
by suggesting (without any confirming data) that the molecular
differences along all adaptive radiations from a common phylogenetic
branching point converged sometime in the distant past.
In the words of Michael Denton:
"Rather then being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular
clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that
at the molecular level the representatives of any one class are equally
isolated from the representatives of another class....
[I]f evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also
be true. Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere. We save evolution
because we believed it in the first place."
_Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_ pg 296.
The molecular clock hypothesis was not an a-priori prediction of
Darwinism. It was an a-postiori repair to save Darwinism from
falsification.
--John P. Turnbull (jpt@ccfdev.eeg.ccf.org)Cleveland Clinic FoundationDept. of Neurology, Section of Neurological ComputingM52-119500 Euclid Ave.Cleveland Ohio 44195Telephone (216) 444-8041; FAX (216) 444-9401