Re: Molecular Dating: The turd that won't go away

On 6/27/24 10:06 PM, erik simpson wrote:

On 6/27/24 9:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 6/27/24 8:02 PM, JTEM wrote:

>
>
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-the-3-2-million-year-old-lucy-fossil-reveals-about-nudity-and-shame >
>
:  Technological advancements in genetic analysis suggest that Lucy
:  may have been naked, or at least much more thinly veiled.
>
They're talking about "Molecular Clock" nonsense.
>
:  According to the coevolutionary tale of humans and their lice,
>
No such "Tale" exists.
>
:  our immediate ancestors lost most of their body fur 3 to 4 million
: years ago and did not don clothing until 83,000 to 170,000 years ago.
>
Pure fiction.
>
DNA is notoriously troublesome, when it comes to dating. It assumes
a "Clock like" static rate which is pure fantasy. Effectively it
ignores SELECTION.
>
"Isolation is the engine of evolution," to quote the good Doctor, and
in isolation the genetic profile -- what is typical -- can change
within a generation. See:  Founder Effect.
>
Any "Bottleneck" could and in all but absolute certainty WOULD also
result in such a "Founder Effect."
>
The point is, these things EXAGGERATE age, when some mythical
"Molecular Clock" is applied. The changes took over quickly from
this "Founder Effect" but they are assumed to have accumulated at
a very low "Clock like" rate.
>
Besides, Lucy wasn't an ancestor. Ask the good Doctor about that.

>
Who is "the good Doctor"?
>

A certain Belgian.
>

Hercule Poirot? Leopold II?