That's a good theory to have if you're interested in defending an existing theory which is apparently flawed.
On the other hand, if you want to look dispassionately at the evidence and engage in science based on that, then such "surmizing" seems contra-indicated.
I'm a scientist---I do that for a living. Based on thirty years of experience in science, I have yet to see any scientific evidence that contradicts evolution (and I include all the "evidence" that shows up on the evolution/creationism threads here).
DNA is a chemical system (I'm a chemist). Chemical systems are influenced by the environment in which they happen. Stress changes the chemical environment within living systems--therefore, the rate at which DNA changes SHOULD change. I have long felt that the idea of a "constant" molecular clock was not valid (based on chemical considerations). The best one can do is develop an AVERAGE rate of change of DNA change based on kinetic rates in systems we have evidence for today. I also expect that they will find (when enough evidence has been collected), that the "clock tick rate" will vary from one species to another.
It's only "apparently flawed" to creationists, because they frantically grasp onto articles like this and misunderstand them and their consequences.
On the other hand, if you want to look dispassionately at the evidence and engage in science based on that, then such "surmizing" seems contra-indicated.
...because...?