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
> 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.
>> For example compare myoglobin, or rRNA in falcons
> and you should be able to determine the relationships in
> this group.
>> Can anyone figure out a way of producing counter-
> proof against this theory? How would one go about
> doing this? One way would be to find in an analysis of
> relationships of species different evolutionary trees
> when comparing different portions of the genome. I
> belive this has been found. Another way would be to
> find inconsistencies when comparing molecular data
> with paleotological data. I think this has been found to.
> Perhaps somebody can fill me in on this. Anyone know
> other ways of producing counter-proof to the molecular
> clock theory? Or proof of it for that matter.
>> Hope to get some lively arguments.
>> Ludde
>>
