[Dan Day]

it's about internal organs and there is not a single bit of evidence about the development of those internal organs so you have no evidence on the question which I have been asking for a few months

Psst: UC Riverside study suggests placentas can evolve in 750,000 years or less

and which Dan Day tried to refute in Post# 378 and I convincingly dismissed in Post# 425

*snort*. Pretty cocky, aren't you? Check out my critique of your "dismissal" in post #509.

[gore3000]

The researchers then use the combination of molecular and geological data to yield estimates for how long it took the placenta to evolve in some lineages. Based on collected data, they find that the shortest time interval between a poeciliid species with a placenta and its last common ancestor without one was 750,000 years, suggesting that placentas can evolve in 750,000 years or less.

The above is garbage since fossils do not show a placenta and there is no DNA to make such a comparison. What we do have are live specimens with and without a placenta. The problem is that since both examples are alive NOW it is only an evolutionist assumption that leads to the conclusion that those without a placenta came before those with one. In addition because there is no way at all to tell what the DNA of any species was a million years ago or a hundred million years ago, there is absolutely no way to calibrate this so called 'clock'. There are more problems with the molecular clock such as that different DNA tests give different cladistic diagrams and the fact that evolution assumes that all species are continually being changed by mutations which means that according to evolutionist assumptions a human and lizard have undergone as many years of mutations as each other since the supposed descent from fish. Thus any study that claims to use a molecular clock is dishonest and absolute nonsense.