The above is garbage since fossils do not show a placenta
The study didn't rely on fossils, try again... I repeat, the first requisite to being able to attempt to rebut something is to first *understand* it properly.
and there is no DNA to make such a comparison.
The researchers *did* use DNA to make the comparison. Learn to read.
What we do have are live specimens with and without a placenta.
And some with *partially developed* placentas. Is there some reason you "forgot" to consider the significance of that?
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.
You totally misunderstand the point of the study, but oh well.
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 many ways, actually. Try reading the literature.
There are more problems with the molecular clock such as that different DNA tests give different cladistic diagrams
Actually, the results are remarkably consistent and the causes of the few anomalies are pretty well understood.
and the fact that evolution assumes that all species are continually being changed by mutations
No, actually, it doesn't. Why don't you learn something about evolution before you attempt to debate it?
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.
But not necessarily as many retained mutations. You seem pretty unclear on the basics...
Thus any study that claims to use a molecular clock is dishonest and absolute nonsense.
Your arguments are flawed, therefore your conclusion is faulty.
And some with *partially developed* placentas. Is there some reason you "forgot" to consider the significance of that?
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. -me-
You totally misunderstand the point of the study, but oh well.
The point of the study is that they have absolutely no examples of old DNA, they have no fossils showing when this happened so they are trying to create evidence where there is none by pure rhetoric. What they are saying is that by looking at the differences between the different DNA's, if one assumes that:
1. evolution is true.
2. the egg layers came first,
3. that mutations occur on a clockwork basis (regardless of the number of individuals in a species, the time it takes to reproduce, environmental conditions, or anything else).
4. that such a time frame has ever been scientifically determined or is even determinable.
5. that all mutations are the same and in no way affect anything worthwhile (except when the evolutionists need it to affect something worthwhile).
Only if all the assumptions above are true, can the study be correct. Of course, since the first one is that evolution is true, the evolutionists are trying to prove that evolution is true by assuming that it is true which of course is a logical fallacy.
So therefore it follows that the study above is a total abomination written no doubt because the authors were complete failures and needed to write something to justify their paychecks. It certainly is not science.