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.
