And here I thought you were awake the last time we discussed this. MORPHOLOGICAL continuity to establish the tree is coorelated with major branch divisions of existing species, so that the HOMOLOGICAL relationships between their various fundamental, shared genomic enterprises, principally of the lesser ribosome, so far, can, in fact, be stacked against each other's HOMOLOGIES by mutational distance against the MORPHOLOGICAL story the bones tell. Your claim, if it held water, would be similar to claiming that you can't believe what an oscilloscope tells you because you aren't reading it in real time. You have been clinging to this primitivistic rejection of inductive reasoning for too long for me to take your obtuseness about this, at this point, as anything more than a propagandist ploy. Can't you come up with a genuine defense of your position?--I'm sort of tired of you making assertions like this, unshared by modern science, and then later claiming you've "proved" or "demonstrated" them, and that your doubts are the common coin of modern scientists. Hard as it may be for you to believe "assert" and "prove" are not the same thing, any more than finding the occasional science crank to agree with you is a mandate from science. Science, mr. Science reporter, acknowledged this business of examining mutational distance w/respect to family tree of presently existing species back in 2000, when we made fundamental alterations in the official Tree of Life, amid much ballyhoo. If there was any more of a problem of induction with this mechanism than there is with reading oscilloscopes, I'd have heard about it long before now.
It is you who is not awake. The molecular clock is garbage as I have already shown and you have not refuted a single point I made about it. There are several reasons for this the most essential one is that we do not have any examples of half billion year old DNA, 100 million year old DNA or even million year old DNA to make comparisons to. Therefore all the samples we have (with a few exceptions that can be counted on the fingers of one hand) are of current DNA. So how can one tell how far current DNA is from millions of year old DNA if one does not have something to compare it to? The answer is one cannot. The second problem is that SUPPOSEDLY all organisms now living are equally far apart from the first life as all others, so to take one as an example of 'what is older' is totally fallacious. It is using the theory of evolution (how species supposedly descended from each other) to prove how species supposedly descended from each other. This is circular reasoning and utter nonsense. There are more problems with the molecular clock also. Since some creatures have much shorter generations than others, and mutations supposedly occur at each reproduction (how else could they happen!) the 'mutational clock' (for that is what is really being talked about here) should be going at a completely different speed for elephanst than for flys, yet evolutionists moronically claim that it goes at the same speed.