>Can you falsify a molecular clock?
Yes.. but no data does this.
>If differences in organisms are related only to differences in their
physiological
>requirements rather than some fanciful relationship to evolutionary
>history, what differences would you predict to see?
This question does not make sense.
>It is interesting to see that universally, the more comparisons that are
used in a >molecular cladistic analysis, the less certain any particular
line of relationship
>becomes.
No, this is false. The smooter the relationship becomes.
>Why don't all the proteins in an organism give the same time for
>divergence?
Proteins serve different functions and are conserved at different
rates.
> Why do we select the clocks that give us the results we want?
A bizzare comment and unfounded question. "We" don't. Perhaps
you are making reference to calibration procedures that take into account
dating from other sources (i.e. fossil record, DNA-DNA hybridization,
etc.) What a novel idea is must be for creationists to have to try and
account for a wide range of data.
>Why don't we do molecular clock studies on histones or developmental
genes?
We do. Even ID folks like Behe do ( See "Histone deletion
mutants challenge the molecular clock hypothesis," Trends in Biochemical
Science 15: 374-376, October 1990)
Of course Behe's conclusions are wrong (just as Denton's were)
because he attacks a straw manversion of evolutionary mechanisms.
Denton was wrong because he didn't realize that there are no
extant primitive organisms. Behe is wrong -- and deceptive-- because he
knowingly fails to account for the fact that proteins may not have had
the same functional use and functional constraints in the past as they do
now.
>Where did the molecules come from in the beginning?"
Putting aside lawyer and wannabe philosophical scholar Johnson's
arguements against theistic evolution, we might agree on this -- it's
just that nasty reality of evolution that separates us.
>If we were to look closely at this question, we would find that
essentially all of the >molecular complexity of modern organisms was
already here when the first >metazoan fossils occur in the record.
Agreed. What a strong argument for evolution.
>This means that whatever molecular evolution means, it does not
>deal with the origin of the system itself. All of the complexity of the
>modern cell was already there before any record of complex life forms
>existed.
Again, I agree. Another strong argument for evolution,
>Thus there is no evidence for the origin of molecular complexity.
This is where Mr. Chadwick plunges off the cliff of reason into
the sea of the obtuse. The literature is filled with studies concerning
early molecular organization and complexity. I am stunned that anyone
with even a passing familiarity with the scientific literature would make
so unfounded a claim.
>We can continue to disparage others, or we can look at the data.
Let's do both. Heaping scorn and derision on creation
"scientists" and YECers should be an Olympic Sport.
.
>Because the posited ancestor of humans and insects not only doesn't
exist,
>but if it did exist, it would have been so far in the past that it would
>not have had any of the features of either group today;
Besides displaying your ignorance of common descent you have your
thinking cap on backwards. The extant organisms (insects and humans) are
the evolved forms. However, another strong point for evolution.
>Yet we find genes for development of cephalization, of complex eyes, and
of many >other features in common for these groups.
Hey, you might be on to something.... common descent!
>So if you choose to believe in evolution...
One does not "believe" in evolution, one accepts or rejects the
arguments of evolution.
One believes in creation.
Understand the difference?
Cheers,
RLT
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]