Uh, no data does? How do you figure that? Maybe we are all defining
molecular clock in different ways.
>
>>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.
RLT,
Unfortunately many of your responses only serve to demonstrate the
legitimacy of Art's questions. Though I may disagree with Art I at least
can see what his questions are driving at while apparently you have not
considered many of them beyond their initial appearence. I will not attempt
to explain all that you can not see at this time for lack of time.
>>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.
This response seeks to answer the question as to why there are different
rates but doesn't answer the question which implies that even if there are
different rates they should still give the same time of divergence. Two
genes evolving at different rates should still give one the same time of
divergence if one compensates for the the rate differential. Unfortunately
the clock is set by first knowing the time of divergence (by fossil record
in the best case scenario) and then calculating the rate from that.
Knowing the time of divergence then each gene can be determined as to its
rate. By definition then each gene will result in the same time of
divergence. What if we determine the rate of a two genes from one organism
(or group) and apply that rate to a study of another set of organisms. If
the times of divergence are different (which the often may be) this would
seem to be incongruous. The answer given would be that the rate of the
gene isn't constant accross organisms. There is something of a catch 22 in
using rates to determine divergence times and that is what Art is getting
at in his next question which is not bizzare and unfounded in this context.
>
>> 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.
The rest chopped for lack of substanative material to respond to.
Regards,
Joel Duff
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/