[gore3000]

Look at the logic of the quoted paragraph. It claimed that evolution inevitably requires a "symmetric split."

If you had bothered to read the paper, you would see that the argument is not about logic, it is about scientific facts. The fact is that genetically birds, reptiles, frogs, and mammals are as far apart from fish as from each other. This is not what would be expected if evolution were true. What would be expected is that frogs would be closer to fish than reptiles, reptiles closer to fish than mammals. This is not the case and if you had bothered to read the paper you would know that. But of course facts mean nothing to you either. That is why the theory of symmetrical evolution is being proposed now. The problem with it is that like evolution it assumes facts not in evidence.It assumes that evolution is true and that the only way to explain away the facts is by a new revision to the much revised theory of evolution (revised constantly because it does not predict scientific discoveries). Of course the authors do not bother themselves to explain how such evolution can occur when not a single mutation which promotes such an event has ever been found. But they have an answer to that! Evolution has stopped so we can no longer see it! (at least it's better than Darwin's 'the dog ate the bones' nonsense).

[PatrickHenry]

Automated blue-skipping placemarker, a service of FreepScript^TM.

[VadeRetro]

The fact is that genetically birds, reptiles, frogs, and mammals are as far apart from fish as from each other. This is not what would be expected if evolution were true.

Molecular clocks generally have to be in areas neutral to selection pressures. Differences in phenotype come from the operation of selection pressures. While frogs are closer to fish in phenotype than are humans (and baby frogs still look like fish), it has been at least as long in elapsed time--and probably a much, much larger number of generations--since the ancestor of modern frogs diverged from fish.

In fact, it's the same divergence, one common ancestry at that point, for both man and frog. So, to clock the difference between us and fish, the clocks have been ticking since the Devonian, IIRC, and it's 2003 now. Guess what! It's 2003 for the froggies, too.

Again and again and again and again, you do not in fact know what would be expected "if evolution were true." You imagine that ignorance helps you, so you cling to it.

[VadeRetro]

I'm going to try showing this better. Vertical distances represent time. Horizontal distances are a convenience for lettering and presentation.

   cats    ducks    garter snakes   frogs   smallmouth bass
    |        |            |           |           |
    |        |            |           |           |
    |        \            /           |           |
    |         ancient diapsids        |           |
    |                |                |           |
    ancient          |                |           |
    synapsids        /                |           |
     \              /                 |           |
      \            /                  |           |
       basal reptiles___              |           |
                        \             |           |
                         \___...______|           |
                                      |           |
                                   ancient        |
                                  amphibians      |
                                      |           |
                                      \           |
                                   some Devonian fish
                                           |
                                           |

The evolutionary model says that modern smallmouth bass should be as far from "some Devonian fish" as modern mammals and all other modern descendants of "some Devonian fish." Why? Because the last time everything was together was before amphibians diverged from fish. This is borne out, except we can only check the fairly modern stuff against each other. (No Devonian DNA survives.)

Do data from molecular clocks tend to match the expected pattern predicted by cladistics? To a stunning degree, yes. Convergence of Independent Phylogenies.