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.
Nice try, but minute analysis of DNA and cross-species anatomical comparisons yield a great deal of evidence. They're hardly "creating" it.
What they are saying is that by looking at the differences between the different DNA's,
Oh, look, evidence after all!
if one assumes that: 1. evolution is true.
No need to assume that for the study they were doing.
2. the egg layers came first,
They didn't assume that, it's demonstratable from their data.
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).
You show a gross misunderstanding of how mutation differentials are used to derive timescales.
4. that such a time frame has ever been scientifically determined or is even determinable.
Sure it is. Long-term average mutation rates are easily calibrated by fossil dating.
5. that all mutations are the same and in no way affect anything worthwhile (except when the evolutionists need it to affect something worthwhile).
Now you're just babbling, and not talking about anything that actually relates to the study.
Only if all the assumptions above are true, can the study be correct.
Nice try, but no.
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.
It would be if that's what they were doing, but since that's your *own* mistake and not theirs...
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.
Or, you've just failed to understand it. But hey, that could *never* happen, right?
Of course they are, your answers to the problems I mentioned prove it. If evolution is not true then the gradual building up of mutations over time would not be true, so yes, the study assumes that evolutionist assumptions are true (and considering that not a single mutation creating greater complexity has ever been shown to have happened but numerous mutations simplifying a complex system have), that is a tremendous assumption with no basis in fact. There is no data showing that egg layers came first because the bones do not show reproductive data and neither does it show the DNA from millions of years ago when this supposedly happened. As to the time basis for the mutation differentials, claiming I am ignorant shows my statement is correct. Your claim that they can be calibrated by fossil dating when fossils do not provide DNA is just a plain lie. As to my point that evolutionists claim that mutations are there just to prove evolution and have no purpose except when evolutionists want it to have a purpose is quite correct. If differences in organism have no purpose then yes, one could claim that any mutations were just happenstance and could be used as a time scale. However, when the changes do have meaning one cannot say that and your insult just proves my statement correct. This is another example of evolutionists contradicting themselves to take both sides of a question. The whole thing is rhetoric, not science.