Counter-proof against the molecular clock theory???

Shane McKee shane at reservoir.win-uk.net
Tue Jul 11 18:36:37 EST 1995


 
In article <3trpco$sb6 at studium.student.umu.se>,
 Ludvig Mortberg (Agneta.Guillemot at historia.umu.se) writes:

 >First of all you have to define what the molecular clock  
>is all about. One definition could be: the molecular  
>clock states that homolog parts of the genome with  
      (^^^^^^ no it doesn't)
>similar functions or physical positions on the  
>chromosome(s), e.g. a certain gene, an intron or a  
>specific non coding region between coding sequences,  
>change with a constant speed, in a random manner, in  
>different species.  

It's misleading to talk about the 'theory of the molecular clock'
in this context, as if it were a hypothesis needing proof or
disproof. The concept of the molecular clock is a tool to help us
deduce relationships, and approximate times of divergence. It is
not a theoretical framework in itself. 

>Can anyone figure out a way of producing counter- 
>proof against this theory? 

There is no theory to produce counter-evidence to. There is data.


More information about the Mol-evol mailing list