What are you talking about? What time? Genetic clocks measure relative mutational distance, not objective elapsed time.
The problem is that there are far too many differences between the archaea, eukaryotes and prokaryotes that would be needed to be changed in one fell swoop for descent of one from another to be possible.
Since, as I said, mutual descent is not what's been suggested, there is no point in my answering this. What the ribosomal genetic clocks suggest is that they all came from something else not presently observable, and not as a direct linear descent from a single common ancestor.
It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.
Same over-reaching argument over and over. You don't know how many intermediate steps, in how many directions, from how many intermediate environmental pressures there were, you don't know what they were, and you don't what order they occured in and you don't know which intermediate environments might have leveraged the changes. Your assumptions are unwarranted.
Evolutionists do use them to claim that a species is xxxx years old. Glad you agree with me that such claims are totally phony.
Since, as I said, mutual descent is not what's been suggested, there is no point in my answering this. What the ribosomal genetic clocks suggest is that they all came from something else not presently observable, and not as a direct linear descent from a single common ancestor.
Another 'the dog ate the homework' excuse from evolutionists! There is no descendant/ancestor relationship possible between these species, yet more complex species do show features from both the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. What this means is that evolution is false and ID is correct since obviously the parts were reused by the intelligent designer (since descent is scientifically impossible). Science is about facts, not about excuses. It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.-me-
Same over-reaching argument over and over. You don't know how many intermediate steps, in how many directions, from how many intermediate environmental pressures there were,
More evolutionists gobbledygook. We do know quite well the differences between an egg laying reproductive system and a mammalian reproductive one. The problem that evolutionists have with this one though is that they cannot give their 'in millions and billions of years anything is possible' excuse. There could not have been intermediate steps because the change had to have occurred in a single generation for the simple reason that a species that does not reproduce dies off. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for the change to have occurred gradually or in any kind of random manner.