As 'just so' as it gets.

The Curious Incident of the Non-Rafting Foxes

David Klinghoffer 

Blink and you might miss this unexpected bit of common sense, embedded in a NY Times article on adorable dwarf foxes native to California's Channel Islands  ("Foxes That Endure Despite a Lack of Genetic Diversity")

. How did they get there? They were evidently ferried thousands of years ago by Native Americans, who seemed to regard them as totem animals. 

It's unlikely the foxes made the trip on their own; the islands are separated from the mainland by 12 to 70 miles of open ocean. Another clue pointing to human help: Native Americans painted foxes on rocks and gave them ceremonial burials. Foxes may have had a spiritual importance to them.

However the animals arrived on the Channel Islands, they adapted quickly. The oldest island fox fossils date back 7,000 years and show that they were small even then. [Emphasis added.]

Fine. Because otherwise how else could a fox make the passage? Just imagine: foxes rafting across 12 miles of ocean on their own, never mind 70 miles -- perhaps hitching a ride on a tree trunk or other matted vegetation torn from the ground in a violent storm. It's like something out of a kids' cartoon. That indeed sounds pretty "unlikely." Actually, "absurd" is more like it.

Now would you believe unaided animals journeying across oceans waters not for 12 or 70 but hundred of miles? Because the journal Nature tells us monkeys did it.  From the Washington Post:

Ancient primates may have traveled from South America to North America about 21 million years ago -- back when the continents were separated by 100 miles of water. The swashbuckling monkeys are reported in a study published Wednesday in Nature

"We never would've predicted they would've been here," lead author Jonathan Bloch of the Florida Museum of Natural History  told Nature.

Bloch and his colleagues identified seven monkey teeth encased in 21-million-year-old rocks in the Panama Canal Basin. The teeth, which belong to a previously undiscovered  capuchin-like  species they have dubbed Panamacebus transitus, represent the oldest evidence of monkeys on the North American continent -- and the first evidence of a mammal crossing the ocean that once separated it from South America.

They "never would've predicted" it because it sounds too unlikely. Yet "the idea of monkeys rafting around unintentionally on beds of vegetation isn't as crazy as it sounds."

No? It's not allowed to be "crazy" because after all, how did the monkeys get to South America to begin with? Against our will, because it's against common sense, we're once again forced to say by rafting:

[M]onkeys had to cross over from Africa. Most scientists believe that happened about 40 million years ago. The Atlantic Ocean would have been a bit narrower than it is now, because of the way the continents have shifted, but it still would have been quite the trip. The monkeys in question were probably carried off to sea on uprooted trees after some kind of storm or other natural disaster.

Ah yes, the theory of animal rafting by uprooted tree and violent storm. The distribution of animals across the globe is often brandished by Darwinists as evidence for common descent. But as  Casey Luskin has pointed here,  biogeography -- the study of that distribution -- in fact poses one of the toughest challenges for evolutionary theory. Monkeys are a case in point:

[O]ne of the most severe biogeographical puzzles for Darwinian theory is the origin of South American monkeys, called "platyrrhines." Based upon molecular and morphological evidence, New World platyrrhine monkeys are thought to be descended from African "Old World" or "catarrhine" monkeys. The fossil record shows that monkeys have lived in South America for about the past 30 million years. But plate tectonic history shows that Africa and South America split off from one another between 100 and 120 million years ago (mya), and that South America was an isolated island continent from about 80 - 3.5 mya. If South American monkeys split off from African monkeys around 30 mya, proponents of neo-Darwinism must somehow account for how they crossed hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers of open ocean to end up in South America.

This problem for evolutionary biologists has been recognized by numerous experts. A Harper Collins textbook on human evolution states: "The origin of platyrrhine monkeys puzzled paleontologists for decades. ... When and how did the monkeys get to South America?" Primatologists John G. Fleagle and Christopher C. Gilbert put it this way in a scientific volume on primate origins:

The most biogeographically challenging aspect of platyrrhine evolution concerns the origin of the entire clade. South America was an island continent throughout most of the Tertiary...and paleontologists have debated for much of this century how and where primates reached South America.

Primate specialist Walter Carl Hartwig is similarly blunt: "The platyrrhine origins issue incorporates several different questions. How did platyrrhines get to South America?" Such basic, vexing questions certainly don't lend credence to the NCSE's claims of "consistency between biogeographic and evolutionary patterns."

For those unfamiliar with the sort of arguments made by neo-Darwinian biogeographers, responses to these puzzles can be almost too incredible to believe. A Harper Collins textbook explains: "The 'rafting hypothesis' argues that monkeys evolved from prosimians once and only once in Africa, and ... made the water-logged trip to South America." And of course, there can't be just one seafaring monkey, or the monkey will soon die leaving no offspring. Thus, at least two monkeys (or perhaps a single pregnant monkey) must have made the rafting voyage.

Fleagle and Gilbert observe that the rafting hypothesis "raises a difficult biogeographical issue" because "South America is separated from Africa by a distance of at least 2600 km, making a phylogenetic and biogeographic link between the primate faunas of the two continents seem very unlikely." But they are wedded to an evolutionary paradigm, meaning that they are obligated to find such a "link" whether it is likely or not. They argue that in light of "[t]he absence of any anthropoids from North America, combined with the considerable morphological evidence of a South American-African connection with the rodent and primate faunas" that therefore "the rafting hypothesis is the most likely scenario for the biogeographic origin of platyrrines."

In other words, the "unlikely" rafting hypothesis is made "likely" only because we know common descent must be true.

To borrow a famous image from Sherlock Holmes, the instance with the Channel Island foxes is a case of the dog that didn't bark in the night. From  "The Adventure of the Silver Blaze,"centered on a race horse gone missing:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

The dog didn't bark because it knew its owner. The foxes didn't raft because, under evolutionary theory, they didn't need to. Monkeys did raft, even across a whole wide ocean, because evolution required it. On other hand, if the theory needed foxes to do so, you can be sure they would obediently hop aboard. It should be the facts that drive startling conclusions, not the theory that's supposed to explain the facts. But with evolution the roles of fact and theory are often reversed. 

Animals do the most striking things, like sailing across oceans on their own, on demand. These are theory-driven "facts," not a fact-driven theory. The non-rafting foxes are the thing that gives the game away. They are, as Holmes says, the curious incident.

Dogs, by the way, like horses and foxes, are not thought to raft. Not yet!

A walk through the mind of a Titan.

On the price of beating swords into ploughshares

South Korean Jehovah’s Witnesses Face Stigma of Not Serving in Army:
By CHOE SANG-HUN

OCTOBER 3, 2015

SEOUL, South Korea — Since he was a teenager, Kim Min-hwan knew he would have to make a choice: abandon his religious convictions or go to prison.

Mr. Kim is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who for decades have faced jail terms as conscientious objectors under South Korea’s Military Service Act. Since his release from prison in 2013, Mr. Kim has found the stigma too great to find a meaningful job, though he was a chemical engineering major. He spends his days volunteering at the Jehovah’s Witnesses headquarters south of Seoul.

“I was predestined to become a convict because I believed in the creator,” Mr. Kim, 31, said in an interview. “I want South Korea to recognize that there are other, nonmilitary ways for us to serve the community.”

Over the years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have filed a series of appeals asking the Constitutional Court to rule that the Military Service Act violates the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religion. Hopes for an end to their travails rose in July, when the court held a public hearing on multiple appeals only four years after it had rejected similar petitions. The court is likely to rule on the matter before the end of the year.

Jehovah’s Witnesses were once dragged into military boot camps and stockades, where they were vilified as “commies” and “traitors” and even tortured and killed. Few spoke out for them in South Korea, where mainstream churches viewed them as a cult and people obsessed over threats from the North.In democratic South Korea today, young male Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer suffer brutal beatings. But 600 to 700 conscientious objectors are still sent to prison on average each year — nearly all of them Jehovah’s Witnesses. They account for more than 90 percent of all imprisoned conscientious objectors in the world, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Nations Human Rights Council and rights groups.

The two Koreas are technically still at war after a truce ended the Korean War in 1953, and tensions have increased under the new North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. Many here argue that not punishing conscientious objectors would compromise South Korea’s ability to deter North Korea’s 1.1 million-strong military.

“North Korea remains a direct and present military threat,” Seo Kyu-young, a Defense Ministry legal counsel, said at a recent hearing at the Constitutional Court. “If we introduce alternative services, we would see a sharp rise in the number of people evading the draft under the pretext of conscience,” he said.

Acting on suggestions from both the Constitutional Court and the country’s National Human Rights Commission, the government announced plans in 2007 to introduce alternative service for conscientious objectors. But the conservative government of President Lee Myung-bak, who took office the following year, rejected them, citing a lack of national consensus.

For decades, the idea of alternatives to military training — serving as firefighters or in homeless shelters, for example — has been unspeakable in South Korea. The typical 21-month stint in the 650,000-member military has been billed as a “sacred duty” for all able-bodied men — and the price of freedom. When cabinet appointees face confirmation hearings, the first thing lawmakers investigate is whether they or their sons avoided military service.

Yet maintaining a conscript army has become more of a challenge. Postwar generations considered universal conscription an irritating interruption in their careers. They also grew disenchanted with recurring corruption, abuse and disciplinary problems in the military.

“South Korean men don’t want to serve in the military if they have a choice, so they get angry if others don’t while they have to,” said Park Yu-ho, 27, who refused to join the military partly as a protest against recent beating deaths in military camps and shooting rampages by abused soldiers.

Today, conscientious objectors are tried in civilian court and are usually given 18 months in prison. This year, they began to get some support from lower courts, where six of them were found not guilty even though their acquittals were appealed by prosecutors.The abuse of conscientious objectors was one of the worst and most ignored human rights violations under the military dictatorship of the 1970s. Conscript officials raided Jehovah’s Witness churches to haul away draft-age men. When they refused to take up arms, they were beaten “like punching bags,” according to the presidential commission on suspicious deaths in the military.

In its reports in 2008, the commission attributed the deaths of five Jehovah’s Witnesses between 1975 and 1985 to beatings and torture that were “routine” among boot camp instructors and military policemen handling conscientious objectors.

The reports, the first of their kind, described “barbarian acts that should never have happened in a civilized society” — including starvation, water torture, and solitary cells smaller than a telephone booth where Jehovah’s Witnesses were forced to stand for days without sleep.

An officer threatened to tie a Jehovah’s Witness to a pole and force him to have a blood infusion, the commission said. One Jehovah’s Witness, Jung Chun-guk, was drafted two more times after his release from prison and each time chose a prison term, serving a total of seven years and 10 months beginning in 1969.Hong Young-il, 49, who served two years in prison from 1990 to 1992, said a military interrogator once put a pistol to his forehead and pretended to execute him.

Much of the abuse took place in full view of other trainees at boot camps, a scene familiar to many who passed through them in the 1970s and ’80s. Even though corporal punishment was a common disciplinary tool in the army then, widespread bias against Jehovah’s Witnesses bolstered society’s silence about their persecution.

“A cellmate convicted of sexually molesting a 5-year-old child liked hectoring me over the importance of defending the country,” said Ryu Yong-beom, 60, a Jehovah’s Witness who served three years in prison in the 1970s.

The denigration of objectors as “commies” or “jongbuk” — North Korea followers — continues today. In a letter sent to a local newspaper in January, Kim Kyung-muk, a filmmaker and imprisoned conscientious objector, said that other convicts chastised him for “not being qualified to be a South Korean citizen.”

After prison, conscientious objectors see their job opportunities seriously limited, as the government and big companies discriminate against ex-convicts, especially those who avoided the draft.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International have repeatedly urged South Korea to allow alternative service for conscientious objectors. The committee called their imprisonment a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which South Korea is a signatory.

South Korea interprets the covenant differently. Its Parliament has never acted on calls for alternative service from its National Human Rights Commission, citing, as President Lee’s government had, a lack of national consensus.

“This debate is a luxury we can’t afford as long as North Korea is there,” said Cho Myung-sik, 36, a veteran. “Besides, how are you going to tell genuine conscientious objectors from fakers if we introduce alternative services? How are you going to ensure fairness between them and those serving in the military?”

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses have emigrated to the United States to save their sons from imprisonment. Several South Korean conscientious objectors have recently won refugee status in Canada, France and Australia.

For Mr. Ryu and his wife, Jung Seon-hee, change has been too slow. She said her two brothers were beaten “half dead” in military jail in the 1980s. Her son was released last year after serving 15 months. In July, another son, Ryu Heung-sun, was sentenced to one and a half years.

“I had hoped that our suffering would end by my sons’ generation,” Ms. Jung said. “I am sad that this country remains so primitive, unable to show lenience to a minority like us.”

A clash of Titans. LXVII

Minors have no right to privacy?:Pros and cons.

Pakistan,frenemy of the west?:Pros and cons.

The book of Exodus:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

EXODUS, BOOK OF

The second scroll of the Pentateuch, also referred to as the Second Book of Moses. It came to be known in Hebrew as Shemohthʹ, “Names,” from its opening phrase, Weʼelʹleh shemohthʹ, “Now these are the names.” “Exodus” is the Latinized form of the Greek; this means “Going Forth; Departure,” that is, of the Israelites out of Egypt.

This book is an obvious continuation of Genesis, beginning with the expression “Now” (literally, “And”) and then relisting the names of the sons of Jacob that are taken from the more complete record at Genesis 46:8-27. Exodus was written in 1512 B.C.E., a year after the Israelites departed from Egypt and camped in the wilderness of Sinai. The book covers a period of 145 years, from Joseph’s death in 1657 B.C.E. to the construction of the tabernacle in 1512 B.C.E.

Writership. Moses’ writership of Exodus has never been questioned by the Jews. Egyptian expressions used are indicative of a writer contemporary with the times, and not of a Jew born later.

Accuracy, Truthfulness. On the part of the writer of Exodus “an intimate acquaintance with Ancient Egypt may be discerned. The position of the Egyptians with respect to foreigners—their separation from them, yet their allowance of them in their country, their special hatred of shepherds, the suspicion of strangers from Palestine as spies—their internal government, its settled character, the power of the King, the influence of the Priests, the great works, the employment of foreigners in their construction, the use of bricks, . . . and of bricks with straw in them, . . . the taskmasters, the embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation of spices, . . . the violent mournings, . . . the fighting with horses and chariots . . .—these are a few out of the many points which might be noted marking an intimate knowledge of Egyptian manners and customs on the part of the author of the Pentateuch.”—The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, by George Rawlinson, 1862, pp. 290, 291.

The account of Pharaoh’s daughter bathing in the Nile has been disputed (Ex 2:5), but Herodotus (II, 35) says (as ancient monuments also show) that in ancient Egypt the women were under no restraint. Also, the Egyptians believed a sovereign virtue existed in the Nile waters. At times Pharaoh went out to the river evidently for purposes of worship. It was here that he was met at least twice by Moses during the Ten Plagues.—Ex 7:15; 8:20.

As to absence of Egyptian monumental evidence of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt, this is not surprising, in view of the fact that a study of the monuments there reveals that the Egyptians did not record matters uncomplimentary to themselves. However, an even more powerful testimony than stone monumental evidence is the living monument of the observance of the Passover by the Jews, who have commemorated the Exodus in this way throughout their entire history.

There is strong ground for accepting the historical accuracy and the general narrative as given in Exodus. According to Westcott and Hort, Jesus and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote or refer to Exodus more than 100 times. The integrity of the writer Moses attests to the book’s authenticity. He points out with the greatest candor his own weaknesses, his hesitancy, and his mistakes, not attributing anything of the miracles, leadership, and organization to his own prowess, though he was acknowledged as great by the Egyptians and, in the main, much respected by Israel.—Ex 11:3; 3:10-12; 4:10-16.

The divine hand is revealed in Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and their Exodus. A better place could hardly be found for Israel’s rapid growth to a mighty nation. Had they remained in Canaan, they would have been subjected to much warfare with the Canaanite inhabitants, while in the territory of the first world power during the time of its zenith they were protected by its might. They lived in the best part of the land, which contributed to their health and fertility, as well as to their intellectual growth to some extent.

But their situation in Egypt was not ideal for moral and spiritual growth; neither was it suitable for their being made a nation under theocratic rule, with a sacrificing and teaching priesthood. Furthermore, God’s promise to give Abraham’s seed the land of Canaan had to be fulfilled, and God’s time for it had come. Israel was to be constituted a great nation, with Jehovah as its King. The book of Exodus relates Jehovah’s accomplishment of this purpose.—Ex 15:13-21.

Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the manuscripts found at the Dead Sea, 15 contain fragments of the book of Exodus. One fragment (4QExf) has been dated as from about 250 B.C.E. Two of the fragments, believed to date from the second or third century B.C.E., were written in ancient Hebrew characters that were in use before the Babylonian exile.

[Box on page 784]

HIGHLIGHTS OF EXODUS

The record of how Jehovah delivered Israel from oppressive slavery in Egypt and organized them into a theocratic nation

Written by Moses in 1512 B.C.E., about a year after Israel departed from Egypt

Israel experiences tyrannical slavery in Egypt (1:1–3:1)

By royal decree the Israelites are made to slave under tyranny; death at the time of birth is decreed for all their male offspring

Moses is adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter and so is spared from death, but he is taught by his own mother

Moses kills an oppressive Egyptian, flees to Midian, becomes shepherd there

Jehovah delivers Israel by the hand of Moses (3:2–15:21)

Moses is commissioned at burning bush as deliverer, to speak and act in the name of Jehovah

Returns to Egypt; with Aaron, he appears before Pharaoh, telling him that Jehovah has said to send Israel away to worship Him in the wilderness; Pharaoh refuses and increases oppression

Jehovah renews promise to deliver Israel and to give them the land of Canaan, thus deepening their appreciation for his name Jehovah

Ten Plagues, announced by Moses and Aaron, come upon Egypt; after the first three, only the Egyptians are plagued; during the tenth, all the firstborn males, both of Egyptians and of their animals, die, while Israel celebrates the Passover

Using a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, Jehovah leads Israel out of Egypt; he opens the Red Sea to permit them to cross over on dry land, then drowns Pharaoh and his army when they try to cross the seabed in pursuit

Jehovah organizes Israel as a theocratic nation (15:22–40:38)

Provision of drinkable water, as well as meat and manna, is made for Israel in the wilderness; in connection with provision of manna, Sabbath is instituted

At Jethro’s suggestion, Moses selects qualified men to serve as chiefs, helping with the work of judging

At Mount Sinai, Jehovah invites the nation to enter into covenant relationship with him; they voluntarily agree; Jehovah gives fear-inspiring display of his glory

Ten Commandments and other laws given through Moses set out Jehovah’s requirements for Israel

Law covenant made over blood of sacrificial animals; the people say, “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do and be obedient”

Instructions are given by God on building the tabernacle and its furniture, as well as on making garments for the priests and on installing the priesthood

While Moses is on Mount Sinai, the people turn to worshiping a golden calf; Moses breaks the stone tablets given him by God; Levites prove loyal; about 3,000 idolaters are slain

Moses sees manifestation of Jehovah’s glory, hears God declare His name

With voluntary offerings of materials, the tabernacle and its furnishings are built; the tabernacle is set up on Nisan 1, 1512 B.C.E., and Jehovah manifests his approval

Pity the poor millenials?:Pros and Cons.

File under "Well said" LVIII

Life is neither good nor evil, but only a place for good and evil. Marcus Aurelius

Socrates 101

On falsifiability and the borders of science.

Evo-devo v. Darwin.

How Embryonic Development Bears on Evolution
Cornelius Hunter

In order for evolution to have occurred as the orthodox theory describes, the intricate embryonic development stages of species must have evolved. Indeed, the developmental pathways of the species would be crucial in such a process. If we are to believe the evolutionary claim that the species spontaneously arose, then untold embryonic development pathways must have somehow undergone massive change.

But while evolutionists expected the study of such evolution of development to yield great insight into the evolutionary process and history, it has underwhelmed. This shortcoming is well known, as exemplified in a 2015 paper, “The Comet Cometh: Evolving Developmental Systems“:

First, traditional comparative approaches to the evolution of development — whether focused on the morphological or on the molecular/genetic level — are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power.

Except that this is an overstatement. To say that comparative approaches “are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power” is to suggest that there was, at one time, some significant level of explanatory power provided. That would be a very optimistic interpretation of the data.

The paper continues:

The more we learn about the evolution of pattern-forming gene networks, or the ontogeny of complex morphological traits, the more it becomes clear that it is less than straightforward to conclude anything about evolutionary origins or dynamics based on such comparisons alone.

“Less than straightforward”? Let’s be clear — a more accurate descriptor would be “impossible.” In fact, the evidence does not reveal an evolutionary history, but rather is supported by the theory. Evolutionary theory does not follow the data, as Huxley prescribed, but rather the data follow the theory.

The paper continues:

On the one hand, homoplasy or convergent evolution abounds at all levels of investigation. One of the most lauded major insights of EvoDevo is that a common toolkit of genes and signaling pathways is reused over and over again to create a large diversity of different body plans, shapes, and organs.

Most lauded major insights? That would be the mother of all euphemisms. Evolutionists are always rationalizing devastating contradictions as teachable moments, and here we have yet another example. To cast the nonsensical finding of a “common toolkit” as a “major insight” is laughable.

This becomes clear as the paper continues:

Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules.

Profound similarities “do not necessarily imply common ancestry.” We have now entered a Lewis Carroll world, as Elliott Sober would put it. The whole point of evolution was that such similarities revealed and mandated common descent. But now, we have the exact opposite, as similarities cannot be due to common descent, but must have arisen independently. And this is an “insight”? A fundamental prediction is demolished and evolutionists do not skip a beat. This is not science.

But it gets worse:

On the other hand, developmental system drift allows conserved networks to change considerably in terms of their component genes and regulatory interactions without changing the phenotypic outcomes such systems produce. This means that even functionally conserved regulatory networks can become unrecognizably divergent at the molecular and genetic level, especially across large evolutionary time spans.

We have now reached the height of absurdity. First, profound developmental similarities were found which could not be ascribed to common descent. Now we find that those developmental pathways which can (theoretically) be ascribed to common descent are profoundly different.

When will this bad dream end? The science contradicts the theory. Over. And over. And over. And over.

Some straight talk re: Human origins.

An Uncommonly Clear Discussion of Human Origins
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

It’s not often that you hear the problem of human origins and the fossil record stated as plainly and lucidly as biologist Ann Gauger does in a new ID the Future episode. Dr. Gauger is CSC Director of Science Communications, and she chatted with Sarah Chaffee about the new book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Gauger explains that there’s a gap of about a million years between when Australopithecines seem to depart from the fossil record and when modern humans unambiguously appear – the latter at about 2 million year ago. What do you suppose happened there?

The purported transitional fossils in between are extremely scarce and fragmentary. Perhaps enough to fill a shoebox, as one scientist has estimated, they are what theistic evolutionists point to in demanding that we accept the standard evolutionary story. A helpful discussion – listen to the podcast or download it here.

Yet more on OOL science's RNA world narrative.

About That RNA World Hypothesis
Cornelius Hunter

Given its widespread popularity and acceptance you might not have realized that the so-called RNA World hypothesis suffers from some dramatic problems. At the top of the list is the rather awkward fact that there is no evidence for it. While skeptics have pointed this out for years, we now see evolutionists coming clean on this inconvenient truth as well. To wit, here is how Peter Wills and Charles Carter open their recent BioSystems  paper:

The RNA World is a widely-embraced hypothetical stage of molecular evolution, devoid of protein enzymes, in which all functional catalysts were ribozymes. Only one fact concerning the RNA World can be established by direct observation: if it ever existed, it ended without leaving any unambiguous trace of itself.

Even this is a bit of an understatement. Because without the prior assumption of evolution, which can and has underwritten a wide range of speculation, there is precisely zero reason to believe this wild hypothesis. No organisms have ever been discovered that demonstrate the RNA World hypothesis in action. Nor have scientists ever constructed any such organisms in their laboratories. This is not too surprising because no one has even produced anything remotely close to a detailed design of how such organisms could function.

Wills and Carter also point out negative evidences such as catalysis (RNA enzymes lack the ability to function over a wide range of temperatures) and the “impossible obstacles” to the hypothetical yet necessary transition from the RNA World to something resembling today’s extant cells. As Carter explains:

Such a rise from RNA to cell-based life would have required an out-of-the-blue appearance of an aaRS [aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase]-like protein that worked even better than its adapted RNA counterpart. That extremely unlikely event would have needed to happen not just once but multiple times — once for every amino acid in the existing gene-protein code. It just doesn’t make sense.

Indeed, it just doesn’t make sense. And yet in spite of these obvious problems, the RNA World has been a textbook staple, presented as a plausible and likely example of how early life evolved.

On the book of Genesis:The Watchtower Society's commentary

GENESIS, BOOK OF

The first book of the Pentateuch (Greek for “five rolls” or “fivefold volume”). “Genesis” (meaning “Origin; Birth”) is the name given to the first of these books by the Greek Septuagint, whereas its Hebrew title Bereʼ·shithʹ (In the Beginning) is taken from the first word in its opening sentence.

When and Where Written. The book of Genesis was evidently part of the one original writing (the Torah), and it was possibly completed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the year 1513 B.C.E. After Genesis 1:1, 2 (relating to the creation of the heavens and the earth), the book evidently covers a span of thousands of years involved in the preparation of the earth for human habitation (see CREATION; DAY), and thereafter it covers the period from man’s creation on down to the year 1657 B.C.E., when Joseph died.—See CHRONOLOGY (From Human Creation to the Present).

Writership. The objection once raised by some skeptics that writing was not known in Moses’ day is today generally discounted. In his book New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis (1949, p. 35), P. J. Wiseman points out that archaeological research gives ample proof that “the art of writing began in the earliest historical times known to man.” Virtually all modern scholars acknowledge the existence of writing long before the time of Moses (in the second millennium B.C.E.). Expressions such as that found in Exodus 17:14, “Write this as a memorial in the book,” substantiate the fact that writing was in common use in Moses’ day. Adam must have had the ability to devise a form of writing, God having given him, as a perfect man, a language, with the ability to handle it perfectly, even to the extent of composing poetry.—Ge 2:19, 23.

From where did Moses get the information he included in Genesis?

All the information contained in the book of Genesis relates to events that took place prior to Moses’ birth. It could have been received directly by divine revelation. It is obvious that someone had to receive the information relating to the events prior to man’s creation in that way, whether Moses or someone prior to him. (Ge 1:1-27; 2:7, 8) This information and the remaining details, however, could have been transmitted to Moses by means of oral tradition. Because of the long life span of men of that period, the information could have been passed from Adam to Moses through just five human links, namely, Methuselah, Shem, Isaac, Levi, and Amram. A third possibility is that Moses obtained much of the information for Genesis from already existing writings or documents. As far back as the 18th century, the Dutch scholar Campegius Vitringa held this view, basing his conclusion upon the frequent occurrence in Genesis (ten times) of the expression (in KJ) “these are the generations of,” and once “this is the book of the generations of.” (Ge 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) In this expression the Hebrew word for “generations” is toh·le·dhohthʹ, and it is better rendered “histories” or “origins.” For example, “generations of the heavens and of the earth” would hardly be fitting, whereas “history of the heavens and the earth” is meaningful. (Ge 2:4) In harmony with this, the German Elberfelder, the French Crampon, and the Spanish Bover-Cantera all use the term “history,” as does the New World Translation. There is no doubt that even as men today are interested in an accurate historical record, so they have been from the start.

For these reasons, Vitringa and others since have understood each use of toh·le·dhohthʹ in Genesis to refer to an already existing written historical document that Moses had in his possession and that he relied upon for the majority of the information recorded in Genesis. They believe that the persons named in direct connection with such ‘histories’ (Adam, Noah, Noah’s sons, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob) were either the writers or original possessors of those written documents. This, of course, would still leave unexplained how all such documents came to be in the possession of Moses. It also leaves unexplained why documents obtained from men who were not distinguished as faithful worshipers of Jehovah (such as Ishmael and Esau) should be the source of much of the information used. It is entirely possible that the expression “This is the history of” is simply an introductory phrase serving conveniently to divide off the various sections of the long overall history. Compare Matthew’s use of a similar expression to introduce his Gospel account.—Mt 1:1; see WRITING.

No definite conclusion can be arrived at, therefore, as to the immediate source from which Moses obtained the information he recorded. Rather than just by one of the methods discussed, the information may have been received by all three, some through direct revelation, some through oral transmission, some by written records. The important point is that Jehovah God guided the prophet Moses so that he wrote by divine inspiration.—2Pe 1:21.

The material was to serve as an inspired guide to future generations. It was to be read to the people on frequent occasions (De 31:10-12; 2Ki 23:2, 3; Ne 8:2, 3, 18), and Israel’s kings were to take instructions from it.—De 17:18, 19.

The “Documentary Theory” of Critics. A theory has been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses’ time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage, they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this theory, there were three sources, which they call “J” (Jahwist), “E” (Elohist), and “P” (Priest Codex). Because of a double mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to the list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim that there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these various sources or writers held different views and theologies yet that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources somehow forms a connected whole. There are many absurdities to which they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.

The original basis for the documentary theory was the use of different titles for God; the critics claim that this indicates different writers. The unreasonableness of such a view, however, can be seen in that in just one small portion of Genesis we find the following titles: “the Most High God” (ʼEl ʽEl·yohnʹ, Ge 14:18); “Producer of heaven and earth” (14:19); “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ, 15:2); “God of sight” (16:13); “God Almighty” (ʼEl Shad·daiʹ, 17:1); “God” (ʼElo·himʹ, 17:3); “the true God” (ha·ʼElo·himʹ, 17:18); “the Judge of all the earth” (18:25). Trying to use this as a basis for attributing each of these sections to a different writer produces insurmountable difficulties and becomes absurd. Rather, the truth is that the different titles applied to God in Genesis are used because of their meaning, revealing Jehovah in his different attributes, in his various works, and in his dealings with his people.

Other examples are: Because of the use of the word ba·raʼʹ, “created,” Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called “P.” Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source supposed to be “J.” The expression “land of Canaan” appearing in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said to be a peculiarity of the writer known as “P,” and therefore these critics hold that “P” wrote these passages. But in chapters 42, 44, 47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed by the same critics to “J” and “E.” Thus, while the critics claim that their theories are needed to account for supposed inconsistencies in Genesis, examination shows that the theories themselves are riddled with inconsistencies.

If the material attributed to each theoretical source is extricated portion by portion, and sentence by sentence, from the Genesis account and then reassembled, the result is a number of accounts each one of which by itself is illogical and incoherent. If we were to believe that these various sources were used and put together by a later compiler, we would be forced to believe that these incoherent accounts, before being amalgamated, were accepted as historical and were used for centuries by the nation of Israel. But what writer, especially a historian, would even construct such disconnected narratives, and if he did, what nation would accept them as a history of its people?

Illustrating the unreasonableness of the advocates of the “documentary theory” is this statement by Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen: “In Pentateuchal criticism it has long been customary to divide the whole into separate documents or ‘hands’. . . . But the practice of Old Testament criticism in attributing these characteristics to different ‘hands’ or documents becomes a manifest absurdity when applied to other ancient Oriental writings that display precisely similar phenomena.” He then cites an example from an Egyptian biography that might, using the theoretical methods employed by the critics of Genesis, be attributed to different “hands” but which work the evidence shows “was conceived, composed, written, and carved within months, weeks, or even less. There can be no ‘hands’ behind its style, which merely varies with the subjects in view and the question of fitting treatment.” (The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1980, p. 349) The weakness of the critics’ theories actually gives added strength to the evidence that only one man, Moses, recorded the connected, coherent account found in Genesis as inspired by God.

The Historical Character of Genesis. Genesis is the only source known to humans that provides a logical, coherent history of things back to the beginning. Without its factual history of the first man and woman, we would be left with the fanciful stories or allegorical explanations of man’s beginning that are found in the creation accounts of pagan nations. A comparison of the book of Genesis with the pagan creation accounts clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Bible account.

Thus, the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat, then took her corpse and “split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky.” So the earth and its sky came into existence. As to the creation of human life, this myth states that the gods caught the god Kingu and they “imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by James Pritchard, 1974, pp. 67, 68) Egyptian creation myths likewise involve the activities of several gods, but they disagree as to which city’s god (that of Memphis or that of Thebes) was the one who conceived the creation. One Egyptian myth relates that the sun-god Ra created mankind from his tears. Greek myths parallel those of the Babylonians. Ancient Chinese records are mostly calendars and chronological calculations or records of merely local or temporary interest.

Not one of such ancient sources furnishes us with the history, genealogy, and chronology that the book of Genesis provides. The writings of the ancient nations in general show uncertainty and confusion as to who their national founders were. The definiteness and detail with which Israel’s early history is presented is strikingly different. In reality we should not expect it to be otherwise, in view of God’s purpose toward his people. The Bible tells us that the nation of Israel was directly governed by God and that he dealt with their forefathers, especially Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then he used Moses in a very special way, through him giving Israel the Law that established them as a nation. Israel’s history is in recorded form not only for Israel’s benefit but also for the benefit of all who will learn of the ways and dealings of the true God and serve him.

In answering those who would reject many portions of Genesis as fables or folklore, Wilhelm Möller says: “I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case in Israel.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopædia, edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. II, p. 1209) He goes on to point out that the prophets accepted the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as correct (Isa 1:9; Am 4:11) and that they accepted Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph as real persons. (Isa 29:22; Mic 7:20) Not only this, but in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Abraham is mentioned in many places, even by Jesus Christ at Matthew 22:32, in connection with the argument about the resurrection. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had not really lived, Jesus would have used another illustration.—Mt 22:31-33.

Value of the Book. Genesis tells us how the universe came into being. In a matter-of-fact way it describes the wonders of creation, without making these overshadow the main purpose of the book. It is thus unlike the pagan creation stories that make these marvels the main thing and go to absurdities and obvious untruths to stress them. Genesis tells about the work of creation, and it shows God’s purpose in creating man, the relationship of man to God, and the relationship of man to the animals. It gives us the reason for death and trouble experienced by mankind and the hope of deliverance. It points out that all humans descended from the one man Adam, who sinned and lost life for his posterity; it thereby enables us to understand how the ransom sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ, could atone for the sins of mankind. Genesis enables us to see how the issue of the rightfulness of God’s sovereignty was raised by the symbolic serpent, Satan the Devil. It gives the sure hope of destruction of Satan and of relief for mankind. It recounts the origin of Babylon and thus of all false religion in the post-Flood earth, thereby aiding in the identification of Babylon the Great in the book of Revelation.—See BABYLON THE GREAT.

Jesus said that if anyone serves God, that one must worship Him with spirit and truth. (Joh 4:24) The Genesis account sets forth the truth of man’s beginnings and of God’s dealings with him. Since everything recorded in Genesis is true and not mythical, we are able to know the truth about man’s history. We can see that up to the time of the Flood men certainly knew the truth of the Biblical account about Eden, for the garden was there and cherubs were there with the flaming sword at its gate. (Ge 3:24) But those who wanted to go the way of their own desires ignored the facts that were before them. Noah, however, served God according to the way that man was originally created to serve him, according to true history. Although, following the Flood, Nimrod set up rebellion against God at the Tower of Babel, the patriarchs through the line of Shem continued to hold to the true way of life. When it was God’s time to organize Israel into a nation and give them the Law, it did not come to them like something completely unknown, a revolutionary change in their way of life. No, for in the patriarchal society they had done many of the things that are found in the Law. As M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1881, Vol. III, p. 782), declares: “This theocracy cannot have entered into history without preparatory events. The facts which led to the introduction of the theocracy are contained in the accounts of Genesis.”

This, in turn, prepared the way for the Messiah and the introduction of Christianity. When Jesus Christ arrived, those who had been living according to the Law to the best of their ability were soon able to identify him. He did not appear suddenly and announce himself to be a great savior and leader without any background or historical credentials. The background that had been furnished right from Genesis on down enabled the honesthearted ones to recognize and follow him. Therefore a strong organization of Jewish Christians could be established as a nucleus, prepared to bring a convincing gospel message to the nations. The forefathers of the pagan nations had led them away from the truth. They were “alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, and . . . had no hope and were without God in the world.” (Eph 2:12) Therefore, they had to learn the principles of God from the beginning before they could become Christians.

Genesis, then, provides a valuable basis for understanding all the other books of the Bible and is essential to Christianity. It sets the theme for the Bible, namely, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under the promised Seed. In addition to the very first and basic prophecy at Genesis 3:15, Genesis has within it numerous other prophecies, a great many of which have been fulfilled since its composition.

[Box on page 921]

HIGHLIGHTS OF GENESIS

A record of God’s creating and preparing the earth for human habitation, of mankind’s role in God’s purpose, and of God’s dealings with men of faith during some 2,300 years of early human history

Covers the period from the beginning of the physical creation down to the death of Joseph in Egypt (1657 B.C.E.)

Creation of physical heavens and earth, and the preparation of the earth for human habitation (1:1–2:25)

Sin and death enter world; “seed” foretold as deliverer (3:1–5:5)

Serpent deceives woman; she and Adam partake of forbidden fruit

Serpent, woman, and Adam sentenced; woman’s seed to crush serpent

Cain, firstborn son of Adam and Eve, murders his brother Abel

In fulfillment of God’s judgment, Adam dies at 930 years of age

Wicked angels and men ruin earth; God brings global Flood (5:6–11:9)

Noah is born in line of Adam’s son Seth; in his day disobedient angels marry women and father the Nephilim, who indulge in violence

Jehovah decrees destruction by a deluge but instructs Noah to build an ark for the preservation of his family and basic animal kinds

Floodwaters overwhelm the whole earth; all humans, flying creatures, and land animals outside ark perish

After the Flood, Jehovah prohibits eating blood, authorizes death penalty for murder, and establishes rainbow covenant, promising never to bring another deluge

During the second generation born after the Flood, people begin to build a tower, defying God’s purpose for them to spread abroad; Jehovah confuses their language, scattering them

Jehovah’s dealings with Abraham (11:10–25:26)

Shem’s descendant Abram leaves Ur in obedience to God’s call

In Canaan, Abram is promised that his seed will receive the land

Lot separates from his uncle Abram, settles near Sodom, is taken captive, and afterward is freed by Abram; Melchizedek blesses Abram

Abram takes Hagar as concubine, and she gives birth to Ishmael

Jehovah changes Abram’s name to Abraham, and Sarai’s name to Sarah; covenant of circumcision is established

Jehovah’s angel informs Abraham that Sarah will bear a son—Isaac

Told of judgment upon Sodom, Abraham pleads for the righteous

Angels urge Lot and his family to leave Sodom; Lot’s wife perishes for disobedience

Isaac is born; Ishmael’s taunts at Isaac’s weaning lead to dismissal

In obedience to Jehovah, Abraham attempts to sacrifice Isaac, and he receives assurance respecting the covenant promises

After Sarah’s death, Abraham arranges to get a wife for Isaac

Isaac’s wife Rebekah gives birth to Esau and Jacob

Jacob (Israel) and his 12 sons; to Egypt for the preservation of life (25:27–50:26)

After Jacob had bought the birthright from Esau for a meal and later, at Rebekah’s urging, procured the blessing Isaac intended for Esau, Jacob departs for Paddan-aram, seeking a wife

Rebekah’s brother Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Leah; then Jacob marries Rachel; by Leah and Rachel and their two maidservants, Jacob has 11 sons and a daughter Dinah before leaving Paddan-aram with his family

Jacob wrestles with an angel, and his thigh joint is put out of place; he desperately clings to the angel in order to receive a blessing, and his name is changed to Israel

After a peaceful meeting with Esau, Jacob resides at Succoth and then at Shechem, where Dinah is violated

Rachel dies when giving birth to Jacob’s 12th son, Benjamin

Out of hatred for Joseph, Rachel’s firstborn, his half brothers sell him; he becomes a slave to Potiphar in Egypt

Imprisoned on false charges, Joseph comes into circumstances that bring his ability to interpret dreams to Pharaoh’s attention

Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dreams regarding a famine and is made second ruler in Egypt

Famine in Canaan forces Jacob’s sons to go to Egypt for food; in time Joseph reveals himself to his half brothers

Jacob and his household move to Egypt; Joseph cares for them

Jacob dies in Egypt after pronouncing prophetic blessings on Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and on his own 12 sons

Time to bring Russia in from the cold?:Pros and cons.

On Darwinism's two headed coin

Finagling Molecular Clocks to Fit Darwinism
Evolution News & Views

Finagle's Constant is whimsically defined as "that quantity which, when added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided by the answer you got, gives you the answer you should have gotten." One of the best examples in modern science is the so-called "Molecular Clock" hypothesis in evolutionary theory.

In Current Biology, Michael S. Y. Lee and Simon Y. W. Ho teach the uninitiated about the wizardry that goes into molecular clocks. First, a bit of history.

In the 1960s, several groups of scientists, including Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, had noted that proteins experience amino acid replacements at a surprisingly consistent rate across very different species. This presumed single, uniform rate of genetic evolution was subsequently described using the term 'molecular clock'. Biologists quickly realised that such a universal pacemaker could be used as a yardstick for measuring the timescale of evolutionary divergences: estimating the rate of amino acid exchanges per unit of time and applying it to protein differences across a range of organisms would allow deduction of the divergence times of their respective lineages.... [Emphasis added]
Remember this: at first, biologists assumed they had discovered a reliable timepiece. Great, they thought; now we can watch Darwin's tree of life unfold over time. This new clock would show the sequence of great transformations: when animals emerged from the sea, when flowering plants blossomed on land, and when the ancestors of great whales began swimming. Unfortunately, as with many things in biology, complications soon set in.

In the 50 years since, leaps in genomic sequencing technology and new computational tools have revealed a more complex and interesting reality: the rates of genetic change vary greatly across the tree of life. The term 'molecular clock' is now used more broadly to refer to a suite of methods and models that assess how rates of genetic evolution vary across the tree of life, and use this information to put an absolute timescale on this tree. Modern molecular clocks are thus critical to inferring evolutionary timescales and understanding the process of genetic change. Analyses of genomic data using clock models that accommodate variation in evolutionary rates have shed new light on the tree of life, as well as the organismal and environmental factors driving genetic change along its branches. However, some major theoretical, empirical and computational challenges remain.
It's not a clock then. It's not reliable. The genetic changes tick at wildly different rates. Ah, but the promise of "shedding light" on evolution was too tempting to let it go. With a few tweaks and new assumptions -- a little finagling -- molecular clocks might still prove useful. We'll just give the variations an impressive-sounding name. How about "rate heterogeneity"?

Modern molecular clocks can handle various forms of evolutionary rate heterogeneity. Rates can vary across different parts of the genome (site effects), across taxa (lineage effects), and across time (here termed 'epoch effects').
Moving along, Ho and Lee engage in some rationalizations for stretching, compressing, and force-fitting wildly different clock rates into Darwin's tree. It's reminiscent of naughty Johnny telling more and more lies to back up the first one.


An extra layer of interest and complexity emerges when two or more sources of rate heterogeneity interact. Site and lineage effects interact when different genes have different patterns of rate variability across taxa (Figure 2D). Mitochondrial DNA has greatly accelerated rates of evolution in snakes and dragon lizards compared with typical lizards, but nuclear DNA shows no such trend. Genomic analyses suggest that such interactions are widespread. Selection might be relaxed on particular genes in particular taxa and thus lead to rapid molecular evolution. For example, the genes coding for tooth enamel are no longer under stabilizing selection in toothless mammals such as anteaters and sloths. Thus, those genes evolve much more rapidly in these lineages, but this pattern is not seen for most other genes. Such complex patterns of rate variation can be accommodated using partitioned clock models, where different portions of the genome are recognized as evolving according to separate clocks or 'pacemakers'.
There is one fixed star that keeps the finaglers on target: the fossil record. It reliably shows the divergence times and patterns over evolutionary history. But wait. Wasn't the molecular clock supposed to be the yardstick for the fossil record? Which clock is calibrating which?

Molecular clocks are vital to reconstructing the detailed timescale and branching pattern of the tree of life, especially in soft-bodied groups that have left few or no fossils. In turn, this can shed light on how major evolutionary events have been influenced by Earth history. However, the use of inappropriate clock models or erroneous calibrations can produce highly misleading estimates of evolutionary timescales. These issues have led to vigorous debates about the timing and drivers of major evolutionary events, including the origins of animal phyla, the ordinal divergences of birds and mammals or the radiation of flowering plants.
The "origins of animal phyla" -- this brings them to the Cambrian explosion. As an example of many spectacular differences between molecular clocks and fossil-record clocks, Ho and Lee point to molecular estimates that put the emergence of animal phyla "a billion years ago -- nearly twice the age of the explosion of animal fossils in Cambrian rocks." Now what to do? Evolutionists tried to compress the rates as far as they could, but it wasn't enough.

These results were at least partly driven by failure to account for lineage effects: genetic change generally occurs more slowly in vertebrates than in invertebrates, but early molecular analyses extrapolated the slow vertebrate evolutionary rate across the entire animal tree. This caused the estimates of animal divergence times to be stretched deep into the Precambrian. Subsequent analyses with better models of rate variation and more carefully chosen calibrations moved the initial radiation of animals to a later time -- into the early Ediacaran period, when the world was gripped by several massive glaciation events ('snowball earth'). Nevertheless, this still precedes the first definitive metazoan fossils by tens of millions of years.
One pattern does emerge; molecular divergence times are generally older than fossil divergence times. But with flexible clocks, how can one know which to rely on? The situation resembles the folk tale about the town crier who set his watch by the church bell, only to find out the bell ringer calibrated his tolling by the town crier's call.

The fixed star on which both methods rely is actually neither one: it is the assumption of Darwin's tree of life. With that in mind, watch this:

One intriguing but largely untested suggestion is that molecular evolution might occur much more rapidly during evolutionary radiations, leading to big genetic divergences in short time intervals. This would be likely to cause current clock models to overestimate divergence ages.... The link between higher rates of evolution and evolutionary success might prove to be more general, and relevant for phenotypic as well as genetic traits.
Mr. slow-and-gradual Darwin might be scandalized by the notion that evolution could be rapid, but he would be gratified to know that finagling a few assumptions can leave his tree intact.

In sum, what we were told would provide empirical evidence for evolution actually has morphed into a set of assumptions and methods to calculate different Finagle's Constants for each part of Darwin's tree, in order to keep the picture from getting falsified. Empiricism must yield to that requirement.

Lee and Ho end by saying, "we can choose to identify and analyse only the genes that display the most desirable of evolutionary timescales." On the other hand, "Instead, more room for improvement might lie in developing better models of rate variation and refining our knowledge and use of calibrations." Each animal, each lineage, each gene, and each epoch are now going to need their own calibration method, based on what is needed to keep the Tree of Life from falling. "For these reasons, molecular clocks will continue to play a key role in shaping our understanding of the evolution of life and the genes that code for it."

For more on problems with the molecular clock hypothesis, see here on the Cambrian explosion, Casey Luskin on placental mammals and biogeography, and Stephen Meyer's analysis of "lightning-fast evolution" to explain the Cambrian enigma.