Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
We can very precisely quantify "how far back" by counting the number of
mutations in the DNA; less precisely that corresponds to _time_ back in
history.
So I presume, then, that some assumption has to be made as to a "mutation
versus time" ratio?
Do you know how that has been determined?
I'm just trying to understand the
process here. The tree diagrams seem to me to be based on the assumption of
what some refer to as macroevolution; ie, there is a common ancestor,
so
genetic "distance" equates to the passage of time,
therefore if we diagram
the genetic distance it is also a diagram of speciation over time.
My
question, then, is: What if that basic assumption is not correct?
I'm inclined to agree that this is the best scientific
explanation we have for what we see,
I'm simply concerned about
categorically stating that no other possibility exists (which is the general
implication).
I'm concerned that in an attempt to understand, we may have
IMPOSED an order on nature that is an illusion, if only in part.
Would a broad base set of coexisting and evolving organisms
remote in time also generate what we observe? If not, why not?