Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

You need to think clearly. When the link you showed already says the rates fluctuates dramatically, how can use that to predict something? And what mutation rates are predicted? Can you show a quote?

What we see is, there are constant mutation, some accumlate enough to show big differences (i.e. dogs), but to date we have not seen the types of mutation accumlation ToE assumed, i.e. primates evolve to humans, or single celled organsim mutated to multi-celled organisms.

If you want to claim the above, you have to make repeatable verifiable tests, not something about average rates that is highly subjective. And all the evidences that under go actual testing shows mutations with a log(n) declining of accumlated mutations. And you can't face it.

Because when rates are averaged, they do resemble those that are predicted. Which would make sense if some genes mutate fast while others slow.

Regardless, to be quite honest, if evolution were not true, and life just instantaneously appeared and disappeared, we really shouldn't even see things like mutation rates that could even potentially be predicted at all. They shouldnt even remotely correlate with temporal positioning in the fossil succession.

If evolution were not true, and mutation rates did not have any relation to morphology observed in the fossil record, people would be predicting the presence of hominids in the precambrian.

So, you can keep poking at this if you want, but really, its just a silly discussion to even have because the relationship between paleontology-morphology-genetics-and mutation accumulation, its just a fundamental reality of nature and Gods creation.

And you keep bringing up e.coli, but you arent addressing my own comments, youre just plugging your ears and responding with more questions that are irrelevant to the links I posted.

Remember, you asked for a test, a test was presented, and you are simply in denial at this stage. You have no reason to believe that mutations do not accumulate, you havent seen such a process that stops mutations from accumulating. And you are just assuming that such a thing doesnt happen, and that the predictions made, I guess you think they are just pure luck?

If a geneticist, predicts the temporal location of fossils, remember, these are people who dont know geology. They dont know the succession. And yet, if they are telling paleontologists where the fossils are, and further, they are proven correct at a later date when the fossils are actually discovered...

This is legitimate.

I guess Ill move on from the conversation. You arent making an argument, youre just talking. You arent using science or research, youre just speaking your opinion.

And there is no flatline of e.coli mutation rates. Youre just making this up too. E.coli still mutates, just as all other life forms do.

And you're asking ridiculous questions like have we bred a dog with wings, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that proposes that such a thing would occur. I cant be bothered to continue here, you clearly aren't interested in truth at all, just your opinion.

You can't just deny reality simply because you don't agree with it. Your opinion is not a sufficient rebuttal to the reality of mutations, the reality if the accumulation and the reality of the predictable fossil succession.

And asking why dogs don't have wings is not a rebuttle either, it's just a meaningless question.

I give you so many examples that you can't answer, and does not fit evolution model. Are you denying them?

I urge you to think about this though. Do you believe in something just because many scientists says it is true, without them be able to show that they are able to repeatably verify and test it in a lab?

Remember this picture?
File:Haeckel drawings.jpg - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

See here

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch126.pdf

Here we have mutation rates derived from accumulated mutations over a recorded number of generations (in a nematode), used to predict mutation rates in other forms of life (people). An example of mutation rates both directly observed and guessed, all under the pretext that mutations accumulate.

Further, you have people taking accumulated mutations, and extrapolating the times of common ancestry between life forms.

Human and Ape Molecular Clocks and Constraints on Paleontological Hypotheses | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

To the extent that times of species divergence, derived from accumulated mutations and respective derived rates of mutation, have in some cases yielded more precise results in defining the dates of ancestral divergence, than dates derived from the fossil succession itself.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you understand what I am saying here ^, what response is there for this? I wonder if you even understand what this means.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, mutation rates fluctuate, some genes mutate fast, some slow. Some genes mutate faster than others. But averages can still be collected and estimated.

You also have mutation rates altered by environmental pressures throughout history, but again, averages can be collected from fossil assemblages collected in times of environmental stasis where changes are numerically consistent.

And again, declining mutation rates arent equivelant to mutations simply stopping. You just keep repeating yourself, but you cant claim a limit to mutations nor claim that mutations stop, simply by saying that mutation rates are slowing down. Mutation rates slow, they speed up, slow again, speed up again. Many factors affect rates of change, so saying they are slowing down, is meaningless to your argument.

The human mutation rate is increasing, even as it slows. - PubMed - NCBI

"we also show that the per-generation mutation rate is increasing even as the per-cell-division rate is decreasing."

 

[Job 33:6]

You are just repeating yourself, but you aren't addressing my points nor do you have a valid rebuttal.

You say mutation rates observed are not those predicted by evolutionary theory, yet it is precisely those that are observed, that are used to predict the locations of fossils, which is purely a prediction made based on evolutionary theory.

How can you say that observed mutation rates arent equivelant to those predicted in evolution when that is precisely what is being discussed in these documents? How can you say that observed mutation rates arent predicted by evolutionary theory when they result in the discovery of fossils at locations more accurately predicted than by paleontologists?

Human and Ape Molecular Clocks and Constraints on Paleontological Hypotheses | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[dcalling]

See here

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch126.pdf

Here we have mutation rates derived from accumulated mutations over a recorded number of generations (in a nematode), used to predict mutation rates in other forms of life (people). An example of mutation rates both directly observed and guessed, all under the pretext that mutations accumulate.

Further, you have people taking accumulated mutations, and extrapolating the times of common ancestry between life forms.

Human and Ape Molecular Clocks and Constraints on Paleontological Hypotheses | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

To the extent that times of species divergence, derived from accumulated mutations and respective derived rates of mutation, have in some cases yielded more precise results in defining the dates of ancestral divergence, than dates derived from the fossil succession itself.

Here are my responses:
1. For your first link, notice how the time ratio various from study to study, some even happen on the same year? And they have to pick the gene sites, pick the model to use, effectively doing a permutation on available sites and models to find one that suit their need. So it is not what as you said, based on known knowledge and predict something, but based on known knowledge, pick variables and find a set that matches what's known (which also changes, so next year if we find a new fossile, the whole paper will be off again).

So you got it all backwards, not only is all things still fluctrating (i.e. years of divergence), but also they are not predating, they are back fiting with selected variables.

From Human genome - Wikipedia:
Recent studies using next generation sequencing technologies concluded a slow mutation rate which doesn't add up with human migration pattern time points and suggesting a new evolutionary time scale
And there goes your clock.

2. For your mutation video. So if there are 60 something changes per generation (from humans to worms), how many possible change locations is there on a DNA? for 66k generation of e.coli , that certainly does not mean 600*66k changes, because some are lost, some died, some are just permutational changes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are my responses:
1. For your first link, notice how the time ratio various from study to study, some even happen on the same year? And they have to pick the gene sites, pick the model to use, effectively doing a permutation on available sites and models to find one that suit their need. So it is not what as you said, based on known knowledge and predict something, but based on known knowledge, pick variables and find a set that matches what's known (which also changes, so next year if we find a new fossile, the whole paper will be off again).

So you got it all backwards, not only is all things still fluctrating (i.e. years of divergence), but also they are not predating, they are back fiting with selected variables.

From Human genome - Wikipedia:
Recent studies using next generation sequencing technologies concluded a slow mutation rate which doesn't add up with human migration pattern time points and suggesting a new evolutionary time scale
And there goes your clock.

2. For your mutation video. So if there are 60 something changes per generation (from humans to worms), how many possible change locations is there on a DNA? for 66k generation of e.coli , that certainly does not mean 600*66k changes, because some are lost, some died, some are just permutational changes.

1. Theres nothing wrong with selecting genes that have stable rates of change. Aside from that, their selection isn't based on prior knowledge of the succession, as the fossils predicted to exist were not known to exist prior to their discovery. You cant pick from variable formulas to match what is known to exist when the predicted fossils are yet to be discovered.

Im going to stop right here and I'll await your response, so we can take the discussion one point at a time.

Human genome - Wikipedia
"Dividing that number by age of fossil of most recent common ancestor of humans and ape, researchers calculated the mutation rate. Recent studies using next generation sequencing technologies concluded a slow mutation rate which doesn't add up with human migration pattern time points and suggesting a new evolutionary time scale. 100,000 year old human fossils found in Israel have served to compound this new found uncertainty of the human migration timeline"

Key word "compound", meaning there is support for divergence from the apparent succession, ie support in favor of the molecular clock.

Studies slow the human DNA clock

 

[Job 33:6]

If mutation rates held no relation to the fossil succession, examining the total accumulated number of mutations, should be meaningless in predicting the locations of fossils. But its not. In the article listed above, people are looking at accumulated mutations and correlating them with fossil evidence. But beyond this, predictions are still further made. If X is true, then Y should be true. If Y is discovered, you have supported the proposition.

What propositions are made with respect to instantaneous creationism (with respect to timing the the location of fossils)? If instantaneous creation occurred, reverse calculations of accumulated change in DNA, shouldnt even be a possibility. Unless God created and destroyed at a continuous rate to make it look as if the fossil succession may have been a product of accumulated mutations.

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

Above is an article referenced within the nature article above it, where molecular biologists denied the fossil succession in light of their own findings using the molecular clock. And with that, ultimately were shown to be more correct that paleontologists of that time.

Such findings would not make sense if DNA, mutations and accumulated mutations held no relation to the fossil succession, as you seem to believe.

Human Origins and Evolution - Vincent M. Sarich and Allan C. Wilson - "Immunological time scale for hominid evolution"

But again, if instantaneous creation were truth, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If instantaneous creation were true, we may as well expect to find these same hominid fossils within 100 years of one another, or 1000 years, or 1 billion years apart in temporal succession. Yet here we find predicted hominid fossils within a million years of where they were predicted (utilizing a molecular clock), years prior to their own discovery.

So to return to your last response, no, the molecular clock isnt determined (in this case) by pre existing fossils. The molecular clock is determined prior to the discovery of fossils, challenges the fossil succession, and is ultimately determined to be true upon the advance in fossil discoveries.

Let me know if you would like more of this explained.

 

[dcalling]

1. Theres nothing wrong with selecting genes that have stable rates of change. Aside from that, their selection isn't based on prior knowledge of the succession, as the fossils predicted to exist were not known to exist prior to their discovery. You cant pick from variable formulas to match what is known to exist when the predicted fossils are yet to be discovered.

Im going to stop right here and I'll await your response, so we can take the discussion one point at a time.

Human genome - Wikipedia
"Dividing that number by age of fossil of most recent common ancestor of humans and ape, researchers calculated the mutation rate. Recent studies using next generation sequencing technologies concluded a slow mutation rate which doesn't add up with human migration pattern time points and suggesting a new evolutionary time scale. 100,000 year old human fossils found in Israel have served to compound this new found uncertainty of the human migration timeline"

Key word "compound", meaning there is support for divergence from the apparent succession, ie support in favor of the molecular clock.

Studies slow the human DNA clock

Ok let's discussion one issue at a time.

Which fossile discovered matched predication? How do you check the genom sequence of a fossile (which is so old that all the dna information should have lost)?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok let's discussion one issue at a time.

Which fossile discovered matched predication? How do you check the genom sequence of a fossile (which is so old that all the dna information should have lost)?

Ancestral fossils between chimp and man. Sahelanthropus and prior orrorin.

The time of divergence between chimp and man was determined via the molecular clock in the late 60s and early 70s (to 5-6 million years ago), the fossils sharing chimp and human morphological features were later discovered in the time-frame predicted by the molecular clock, in the early 2000s.

You dont check the dna of fossils, phylogeny in paleontology is based on morphology.

 

[klutedavid]

The reason why I don't believe in evolutionary theory.

How did whales evolve?

In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record. A startling discovery made in the arid sands of Pakistan announced by University of Michigan paleontologists Philip Gingerich and Donald Russell in 1981 finally delivered the transitional form scientists had been hoping for. In freshwater sediments dating to about 53 million years ago, the researchers recovered the fossils of an animal they called Pakicetus inachus. Little more than the back of the animal’s skull had been recovered, but it possessed a feature that unmistakably connected it to cetaceans. Cetaceans, like many other mammals, have ear bones enclosed in a dome of bone on the underside of their skulls called the auditory bulla. Where whales differ is that the margin of the dome closest to the midline of the skull, called the involucrum, is extremely thick, dense, and highly mineralized. This condition is called pachyosteosclerosis, and whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.
(How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian)

Pakicetus has an ear bone similar to the ear bone of a whale.

Pakicetus is a four legged, hoofed animal, I do not see how the ear bone of pakicetus is considered, sufficient evidence to link a pakicetus to a whale. If this is one of the best examples of evolution in the fossil record, then I simply cannot support the theory of evolution.

 

[dcalling]

Ancestral fossils between chimp and man. Sahelanthropus and prior orrorin.

The time of divergence between chimp and man was determined via the molecular clock in the late 60s and early 70s (to 5-6 million years ago), the fossils sharing chimp and human morphological features were later discovered in the time-frame predicted by the molecular clock, in the early 2000s.

You dont check the dna of fossils, phylogeny in paleontology is based on morphology.

Do you have links to quote for both? I think they most likely used the findings of the first to determine the age of the second

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you have links to quote for both? I think they most likely used the findings of the first to determine the age of the second

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

Human Origins and Evolution - Vincent M. Sarich and Allan C. Wilson - "Immunological time scale for hominid evolution"

Virtual cranial reconstruction of <i>Sahelanthropus tchadensis</i>

A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa

Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism

 

[The Barbarian]

I think it is the evolutionists (at least the initial ones) who are the real racists, who believe that blacks/asians evolved slower than whites.

By the 1930s, evolutionists shows that racial and eugenic ideas were scientifically unsupportable. On the other hand, into the 1990s, creationists leaders were arguing that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

So there's that.

 

[dcalling]

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

Human Origins and Evolution - Vincent M. Sarich and Allan C. Wilson - "Immunological time scale for hominid evolution"

Virtual cranial reconstruction of <i>Sahelanthropus tchadensis</i>

A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa

Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism

Well, it is best to present an abstract of the quoted article, if you have read them.

I read the abstract of the first one, and immediately notice it is not hard science (something tested), it is suggestions (i.e. hypthesis).
See the quote "Hence, we suggest that apes and man have a more recent common ancestry than is usually supposed"

I am looking for hard evidence, tests, not hypthesis.

 

[dcalling]

By the 1930s, evolutionists shows that racial and eugenic ideas were scientifically unsupportable. On the other hand, into the 1990s, creationists leaders were arguing that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

So there's that.

That is hardly true. Check wiki:
"Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[24] Brazil,[25] Canada,[26] Japan and Sweden."
So by 1930s the ploicy start to spread. The only reason the scientific community start to get away from it is because they saw what Nazi Germany did with it (Not the scentific side of it, but the human side of the scientists).

And from the same wiki page, which is easy to check eugenic are getting a kick start back in 2000 too, Richard Dawkings believe human breeding should be the same as animal breeding. He is actually right if you believe in evolution

So if you believe creation, then we are all brothers and sisters.
If you believe in evolution, then it is a competion to see who evolved most and who are still closer to apes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, it is best to present an abstract of the quoted article, if you have read them.

I read the abstract of the first one, and immediately notice it is not hard science (something tested), it is suggestions (i.e. hypthesis).
See the quote "Hence, we suggest that apes and man have a more recent common ancestry than is usually supposed"

I am looking for hard evidence, tests, not hypthesis.

All science is "suggested". Everyone proposes ideas, then follows with tests to demonstrate truth in their ideas. You cannot ask for more than this, from science.

And these are tests. These people made a hypothesis, they formulated procedures to test that hypothesis. Then with their results, they provided justification for the truth of their hypothesis. This is like a textbook example of a scientific test, and it was successful in supporting their hypothesis.

And again, I will point this out...

Everything about their test is logically sound. Mutations are observed, mutations are observed to accumulate. The logical question becomes, if we look at sections of DNA where mutations have accumulated (or in this care, resulting proteins), can we abstract the time in which species have diverged? The people who made the above publication said, we believe we can, here is how. They used prior published and repeated methods to develop tables and figures, which numerically indicated times of divergence, then had a discussion comparing their results with those currently known to exist. And further make predictions of things that are yet to be discovered (at their time).

"We have recently shown that albumin evolution in primates is a remarkably regular process (6). Lineages of equal time depth show very similar degrees of change in their albumins. The degrees of change shown would therefore seem to be a function of time, and a mathematical relationship between ID and the time of divergence of any two species must exist. Thus, albumin molecules can serve as an evolutionary clock or dating device. The calibration of that clock, that is, the elucidation of the relationship between ID and time, would allow us to calculate the time of divergence between apes and man (13). This relationship is likely to be rather simple. If the amino acid sequences of proteins also evolve at steady rates, and there is evidence that they often do (14), then the relationship between ID and time of divergence should be of the same form as the relationship between ID and structural difference (number of amino acid replacements). Direct evidence for a simple correlation 'between immunological cross-reactivity and structural relatedness is available from complement fixation studies of hemoglobins (15, 16) and cytochromes c (17) of known amino acid sequence. Indirect evidence for such a correlation is provided by the correspondence between cross-reactivity and phylogenetic relatedness which has been demonstrated for a variety of proteins (15, 18)."

"fragmentary, it does, in combination with the available immunological evidence, provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the lineages leading to the living hominoids and Old World monkeys split about 30 million years ago (21). That is, the ID of 2.3 which is the mean ID observed between the albumins of hominoids and Old World monkeys corresponds to a T value of about 30 in the above equation. If log 2.3 = k x 30, then k = 0.012. Since the mean ID bet'ween the albumins of man and the African apes 1202 is 1.13, the time of divergence of man from the African apes is log 1.13 divided by 0.012, that is, 5 million years. Proceeding similarly, we calculate that the lineage leading to the orang separated from that leading to the African apes 8 million years ago, and that the time of divergence of the gibbon and siamang lineage from that leading to the other apes and man is 10 million years (Fig. 1). "

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

And their predictions were ultimately demonstrated to be true, as paleontologists came to recognize their own mistakes in suggesting that ancestral splits occurred further back in time, some 14+ million years ago (based on fossils like ramapithecus), but further, not only were prior mistakes discovered in suggesting ramapithecus as the earliest human-ape ancestor, but future truths were discovered, as fossils like orrorin and sahelanthropus joined the sequence and demonstrated traits of human-ape ancestry, in line with predictions made by Sarich and Wilson.



If instantaneous creation were true, this type of event would never happen. And really sahelanthropus and orrorin and ramapithecus could have appeared in the succession, anywhere. <1 million, 1 million, 3 million, 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, 30 million. Even beyond that, these organisms could have appeared anywhere, the devonian, silurian, permian, anywhere in the mesozoic etc.

But they dont appear anywhere, they appear where we would expect them to appear, it evolution were true. If it were true that accumulated mutations correlates with the fossils succession (which it does), then the logical conclusion is that life evolved. And nobody can really counter this logic with any rationality.

 

[dcalling]

All science is "suggested". Everyone proposes ideas, then follows with tests to demonstrate truth in their ideas. You cannot ask for more than this, from science.

And these are tests. These people made a hypothesis, they formulated procedures to test that hypothesis. Then with their results, they provided justification for the truth of their hypothesis. This is like a textbook example of a scientific test, and it was successful in supporting their hypothesis.

And again, I will point this out...

Everything about their test is logically sound. Mutations are observed, mutations are observed to accumulate. The logical question becomes, if we look at sections of DNA where mutations have accumulated (or in this care, resulting proteins), can we abstract the time in which species have diverged? The people who made the above publication said, we believe we can, here is how. They used prior published and repeated methods to develop tables and figures, which numerically indicated times of divergence, then had a discussion comparing their results with those currently known to exist. And further make predictions of things that are yet to be discovered (at their time).

"We have recently shown that albumin evolution in primates is a remarkably regular process (6). Lineages of equal time depth show very similar degrees of change in their albumins. The degrees of change shown would therefore seem to be a function of time, and a mathematical relationship between ID and the time of divergence of any two species must exist. Thus, albumin molecules can serve as an evolutionary clock or dating device. The calibration of that clock, that is, the elucidation of the relationship between ID and time, would allow us to calculate the time of divergence between apes and man (13). This relationship is likely to be rather simple. If the amino acid sequences of proteins also evolve at steady rates, and there is evidence that they often do (14), then the relationship between ID and time of divergence should be of the same form as the relationship between ID and structural difference (number of amino acid replacements). Direct evidence for a simple correlation 'between immunological cross-reactivity and structural relatedness is available from complement fixation studies of hemoglobins (15, 16) and cytochromes c (17) of known amino acid sequence. Indirect evidence for such a correlation is provided by the correspondence between cross-reactivity and phylogenetic relatedness which has been demonstrated for a variety of proteins (15, 18)."

"fragmentary, it does, in combination with the available immunological evidence, provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the lineages leading to the living hominoids and Old World monkeys split about 30 million years ago (21). That is, the ID of 2.3 which is the mean ID observed between the albumins of hominoids and Old World monkeys corresponds to a T value of about 30 in the above equation. If log 2.3 = k x 30, then k = 0.012. Since the mean ID bet'ween the albumins of man and the African apes 1202 is 1.13, the time of divergence of man from the African apes is log 1.13 divided by 0.012, that is, 5 million years. Proceeding similarly, we calculate that the lineage leading to the orang separated from that leading to the African apes 8 million years ago, and that the time of divergence of the gibbon and siamang lineage from that leading to the other apes and man is 10 million years (Fig. 1). "

Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution

And their predictions were ultimately demonstrated to be true, as paleontologists came to recognize their own mistakes in suggesting that ancestral splits occurred further back in time, some 14+ million years ago (based on fossils like ramapithecus), but further, not only were prior mistakes discovered in suggesting ramapithecus as the earliest human-ape ancestor, but future truths were discovered, as fossils like orrorin and sahelanthropus joined the sequence and demonstrated traits of human-ape ancestry, in line with predictions made by Sarich and Wilson.



If instantaneous creation were true, this type of event would never happen. And really sahelanthropus and orrorin and ramapithecus could have appeared in the succession, anywhere. <1 million, 1 million, 3 million, 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, 30 million. Even beyond that, these organisms could have appeared anywhere, the devonian, silurian, permian, anywhere in the mesozoic etc.

But they dont appear anywhere, they appear where we would expect them to appear, it evolution were true. If it were true that accumulated mutations correlates with the fossils succession (which it does), then the logical conclusion is that life evolved. And nobody can really counter this logic with any rationality.

Something really strange in your evidences. Not only all the pieces you present are all floating (meaning date is hard to determine, if they are human ancestors may or may not be right), but also your main argument is conflicting with current scientific consenses (not means that you are wrong, but since you mostly agree with the scientific consenses).
So here is a quote from wiki about your example of orrorin, which you quoted as matched prediction of clock:

" The discoverers conclude that Orrorin is a hominin on the basis of its bipedal locomotion and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million years ago, in the Messinian. This date is markedly different from those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found general acceptance among paleoanthropologists"

 

[Job 33:6]

Something really strange in your evidences. Not only all the pieces you present are all floating (meaning date is hard to determine, if they are human ancestors may or may not be right), but also your main argument is conflicting with current scientific consenses (not means that you are wrong, but since you mostly agree with the scientific consenses).
So here is a quote from wiki about your example of orrorin, which you quoted as matched prediction of clock:

" The discoverers conclude that Orrorin is a hominin on the basis of its bipedal locomotion and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million years ago, in the Messinian. This date is markedly different from those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found general acceptance among paleoanthropologists"

Yes, Orrorin is within 1 million years of the molecular clocks prediction, whereas discrepancies between the two studies used to span some 15-30+ million years. What you are seeing discussed there, is a fine tuning of correlating the two studies in paleontology and molecular biology. And in geology, within 1 million years, is like, its hard to fine tune details within 1 million years in geology. That means that the molecular clock prediction and the fossil succession are, very close to one another, from a geologic history perspective.

And again, I simply repeat the point that, If it is coming down to the point where paleontologists and microbiologists are going back and forth and are both making strong arguments through various independent lines of research, which are aligning with one another within 1 million years (out of an earth history of 4.56 billion years)...this is strongly suggestive of the fossil succession being a product of accumulated mutations.

Alternatively, your consideration of this idea that God instantaneously created and destroyed life over billions of years, really does't have a mechanism to allow for such predictions. By your consideration, these fossils could be 10 million or 30 million or 50 million or 100 million or 200 million etc. years away from one another. If God instantaneously created and destroyed over and over and over again, fossils could exist anywhere at any time.

Yet here we have molecular biologists and paleontologists independently deriving answers that are within 1 million years of one another.

And not only that, but we observe mutations, we see mutations accumulate, and we know that morphology (our bone structure) is a product of our DNA (which mutates) therefore, it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that changes in fossils, which are ancient bones, would also logically be a product of DNA alterations, just as our bones are altered by DNA changes, today.

To conclude, it all makes too much sense. The independent studies and logical derivations are aligning too well, for DNA and mutations not to hold relation to the fossil succession.

And the more science you know, the more apparent it becomes across more independent fields of study.

 

[dcalling]

Yes, Orrorin is within 1 million years of the molecular clocks prediction, whereas discrepancies between the two studies used to span some 15-30+ million years. What you are seeing discussed there, is a fine tuning of correlating the two studies in paleontology and molecular biology. And in geology, within 1 million years, is like, its hard to fine tune details within 1 million years in geology. That means that the molecular clock prediction and the fossil succession are, very close to one another, from a geologic history perspective.

And again, I simply repeat the point that, If it is coming down to the point where paleontologists and microbiologists are going back and forth and are both making strong arguments through various independent lines of research, which are aligning with one another within 1 million years (out of an earth history of 4.56 billion years)...this is strongly suggestive of the fossil succession being a product of accumulated mutations.

Alternatively, your consideration of this idea that God instantaneously created and destroyed life over billions of years, really does't have a mechanism to allow for such predictions. By your consideration, these fossils could be 10 million or 30 million or 50 million or 100 million or 200 million etc. years away from one another. If God instantaneously created and destroyed over and over and over again, fossils could exist anywhere at any time.

Yet here we have molecular biologists and paleontologists independently deriving answers that are within 1 million years of one another.

And not only that, but we observe mutations, we see mutations accumulate, and we know that morphology (our bone structure) is a product of our DNA (which mutates) therefore, it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that changes in fossils, which are ancient bones, would also logically be a product of DNA alterations, just as our bones are altered by DNA changes, today.

To conclude, it all makes too much sense. The independent studies and logical derivations are aligning too well, for DNA and mutations not to hold relation to the fossil succession.

And the more science you know, the more apparent it becomes across more independent fields of study.

First, just because God could instantly create things does not mean he did it on all things. Just like how we wrote code, we write something, and later find we can do more, and deprecated the old code and created new code.

Second, I have to thank some other member of the form on this one. The article you quoted is from 1967, and more recent research shows exact opposite information as you stated.
Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University

The article is from 2014, in it Peter Wilf, a paleobotanist and professor of geoscience, plainly states: "....and we found the opposite, that the fossils are much older than the clock dates. In this case, we can definitely say that the clocks are wrong. The fossils prove it"