Replies

The number of changes adds up to the amount of change.

But each change is one state of evolution. If there are many more changes than has been believed then the rate of evolution is faster than has been believed.

But they are not questioning the measurement techniques that derived the amount of differences in similar DNA sequences, the amount of change DID NOT CHANGE for all the species, they are trying to say that absent a good fossil focal point, divergence dates BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE THAT WAS MEASURED AND HAS NOT CHANGED OR BEEN QUESTIONED need to be pushed out two to six times as much.

Are you following?

Say that previously a 10% difference in a particular DNA region between two species of a particular type and generation time (say two types of badgers) was assumed to correspond to a 10,000 year difference should be 20,000 or 60,000 BASED upon their penguin data.

The “rate of evolution” would be SLOWER, if that 10% difference took some 40,000 years instead of 10,000.

Why are we back to this? It is not a difficult concept. I thought we had moved on to EXPLAINING how they could claiming both contradictory things. Why am I having to explain the contradiction again?