Creation vs. Evolution

[niky]

Perhaps this part of the discussion is better discussed in the "God" thread. But last:

Assembled by them, not 'penned'. And the gnostic books were left out of the assembly of the bible because they went against Jesus's teachings, no other reason.

Assembled is exactly what I mean by "penned". An oral tradition is not fixed. By putting it down on paper, you fix it. And in the case of the actual writers, they did, as you say, assemble the books out of several different sources each. Yet these were written from the accounts of others... not from personal observation of the actual writers themselves, and thus the vaildity and accuracy is questionable. That the different gospels agree on some points leads to the assumption that the points agreed upon have some valid historical reference, but this is merely assumption and not proof.

It's true that he was more isolated when he was alive. For one thing, he never frequently traveled to the extent of great distances. And his life was not the start of Christianity, his death was.

Yet a greater knowledge of his life would make it easier to prove his existence, would it not? Places he stayed, people he lived with, census records he would be listed on...

You are also (posthumously) leaving out the 12 disciples altogether with this assumption, along with the circumstances surrounding their respective deaths, who were certainly of concern to the Romans immediately following Jesus's death.

That the Church leaders existed and had followers is a given, and there is record of them.

The bible also says that a thousand years are like a day to God.

I disagree with theologists who say that Genesis was meant to be a literal interpretation.

If you agree that Genesis is not to be taken literally, then there's nothing in the Bible that goes against the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the concept of sin explain the shortcomings of our own anatomy, if this concept of Original Sin is to be taken allegorically instead of as historical fact.

 

[dylansan]

If the whole Adam and Eve story is allegorical anyway, then it pretty much negates the entire reason for Jesus to have existed at all. Where did original sin come from, if not them?

 

[Sach]

Assembled is exactly what I mean by "penned". An oral tradition is not fixed. By putting it down on paper, you fix it. And in the case of the actual writers, they did, as you say, assemble the books out of several different sources each. Yet these were written from the accounts of others... not from personal observation of the actual writers themselves, and thus the vaildity and accuracy is questionable. That the different gospels agree on some points leads to the assumption that the points agreed upon have some valid historical reference, but this is merely assumption and not proof.

Several books of the new testament were written by Luke, who was known for his accuracy and attention to detail.

What historical document isn't questionable, may I ask?


You seem also not to be aware of the fact that several documents which were assembled into the Old Testament predicted things about the coming of Christ, several hundred years in advance. The things they predicted came to pass. I would suggest doing a search into these matters, as I believe the number is over 400.

Yet a greater knowledge of his life would make it easier to prove his existence, would it not? Places he stayed, people he lived with, census records he would be listed on...

And what part of that, besides the census (I'm unaware on this one) don't we have?

That the Church leaders existed and had followers is a given, and there is record of them.

If you are referring to my comment about the disciples, you are also leaving out that these were not 'leaders'. They were fisherman, etc. Yet they somehow were able to start the largest religious following the world has ever known, and they gave their lives for it in the most perilous ways, when all they would have had to have done was to admit that they were not preaching truths. Yet they chose their particular deaths willingly, despite never being charismatic or particularly brave individuals previously

If you agree that Genesis is not to be taken literally, then there's nothing in the Bible that goes against the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the concept of sin explain the shortcomings of our own anatomy, if this concept of Original Sin is to be taken allegorically instead of as historical fact.

You are ignoring my previous comment stating that I don't deny being able to observe evolution on the macro-level. And you are also assuming there is a contradiction in believing that shortcomings (one of countless) in anatomy are attributed to original sin.


I never said the whole thing was meant to be allegorical. I specifically discussed the timeline of creation.

 

[niky]

No historical document is unquestionable. The winners write history, thus ancient writings, especially covering politically or religiously sensitive topics, always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Same can be said of modern history. It's only recently that the United States has acknowledged that it ran concentration camps for Japanese American citizens during World War II (not Japanese citizens, but second and third generation naturalized Japanese immigrants) and has made reparations. Yet you still won't learn about them in American schools. Nor will you learn much about the Philippine-American war, either.

 

[homeforsummer]

I also don't care to argue with anyone about this subject. See the part of my post: "IMO".

Bad news bub, if you're prepared to come into a discussion and come out with a load of guff, then expect people to call you on it. Whether you reply or not is up to you, but this is a forum, not a blog.

How can 'an explosion' create 'laws' in the universe: the constant of gravity, the speed of light, the speed of sound, certain rays being able to pass through some objects but not others, the fact that most objects in space are rotating, various other mathematical principles, etc., etc.?

Laws weren't "created" by the big bang. They're physical constants and the big bang was subject to the same laws - no energy from it would travel faster than light, for example.

The speed of sound isn't a "law" as such - it varies depending on all sorts of factors - atmospheric pressure, the medium through which sound is travelling (it's different in water than it is in air, for example).

"Rays" passing through different objects depends on the wavelength of the rays. Gamma rays have a very small wavelength, so they can pass through much more tightly-packed matter than, say, alpha radiation with its much longer wavelength.

Rotation of cosmic objects has mainly been dictated by the energy with which they came together (in the absence of friction in the vacuum of space, two objects hitting each other will always have a certain energy that will influence a spin one way or another), and influenced by gravitational bodies around them.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that the big bang was an explosion. It was a rapid expansion.

How does an explosion create so many of the things found on this planet that share the golden proportion? The Fibonacci sequence?

It's not that unbelievable really. If you exclude the fact that we already know it wasn't an explosion, there's a fairly obvious explanation to the golden proportion, which is that in the conditions found on our planet, there's an easy way for things to grow, and that way that things are growing results in constants found throughout nature. The spiral found in a sunflower or nautilus shell is the same because in a natural world with a set of natural constants, it's presumably the most efficient way to grow.

I don't deny the existence of the fact that you can basically reproduce evolution in a lab, on a smaller scale. But randomness just doesn't suffice when it comes to the rest of the properties of reality, imo.

You're making the mistake of assuming it's all "randomness", rather than the work of massive forces of nature.

I would like to challenge the evolutionist:
Can you explain blood clotting? The incredibly amazing and complex task that we take for granted to survive? How did it evolve into existance?

Christ. Really?

TankAss, in order to have a serious discussion with you on things like this you really need to either do more research, or listen more to what people are trying to explain.

Virtually every single post you make seems to be guided by the assumption that something evolves from nothing - eg. that blod clots just "appeared" as part of evolution.

Evolution is not a series of random events that happen to improve the species. It's a process of completely non-random selection influenced by the ability of a species to survive. That species' ability to survive is down to it being more suited to its living conditions, and that is often dictated by tiny, naturally-occurring mutations in cells that allow them an advantage over their competitors. Blood clotting would be just such a characteristic. It likely formed millions upon millions of years ago in fairly basic life-forms, and the creatures that couldn't clot their vital fluids would have died off, leaving only creatures that could develop blood clots.

On the small off-chance that this mutation is beneficial in any way and that line survives, then it's passed on to the creature's offspring, who may or may not survive their own life to pass on more genes. Many mutations won't have any benefits at all, others may not work allowing competitors to survive instead.

You've also neglected to mention that on rare occasions, blood clots can be fatal. So it's hardly the most ideal survival method.

Once again - evolution isn't a bunch of random benefits that spring into existence allowing certain species to survive.

Before asking any more questions, please think about this and make sure you're not asking based on misinformation.

 

[Touring Mars]

How can 'an explosion' create 'laws' in the universe: the constant of gravity, the speed of light, the speed of sound, certain rays being able to pass through some objects but not others, the fact that most objects in space are rotating, various other mathematical principles, etc., etc.?

A question that physics is trying to answer - but atleast it is attempting to answer this question in a more substantive manner than saying 'An invisible man did it then ran away'.

The fact that humans can't create nature does not mean nature was designed.

👍 Exactly.

Creationists seem convinced that design is the only possible explanation for any and all complexity, despite the evidence to the contrary. This blindness to alternative explanations for how complexity may arise compels them to believe that even the most complex of things, like living cells, must have been designed, even though their sheer complexity cries out for an alternative explanation. Those who claim that cells were designed need to back up their claims with something more substantial than the mere observation that cells are very complex. The design hypothesis remains wholly unsupported by evidence.

Science, on the other hand, has gained tremendous insights which explain how such complexity can arise without the need to invoke the existence of something even more complex in order to explain it.

Where are all the missing ape fossils?

A few decades ago, an identical question was asked - where are the missing hominid fossils? Evolution theory predicted the existence of such fossils, and it was proved right. The existence of hominid fossils is, in itself, a validation of evolution theory and a direct refutation of creationism. That there are far fewer fossils that we know correspond to other primates (such as chimps, for example) is not evidence that their ancestors did not exist as well, it just means that they are not so readily available (for whatever reason). Significantly, however, the fossil record is not the only window into our ancestral history - genetics is a poweful and direct way of testing the hypotheses and predictions made by evolutionary theory too, and guess what...

I would like to challenge the evolutionist:

I think it's fine that you ask questions, but it's not clear that you are taking in much of what is being said in reply to you. It would be nice to hear what you think about some of the responses to your questions rather than just firing off yet more questions that have been dealt with numerous times in this thread already.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I think it's fine that you ask questions, but it's not clear that you are taking in much of what is being said in reply to you. It would be nice to hear what you think about some of the responses to your questions rather than just firing off yet more questions that have been dealt with numerous times in this thread already.

This Tankass.

You say you want to learn, but I'm getting increasingly convinced that you don't. There have been som many excellent posts by Homeforsummer and Touring Mars that you seem to have completely ignored.

So are you trying to learn or have you already decided what to believe and just try to disprove evolution with loose quotes and questions?

 

[Sureboss]

Even with our technology and level of compression we can't come close of build a supercomputer as powerful as our brain let along put it in the size of a human skill. Also our machine are not anywhere as efficient nor as small as the machines inside a living cell.
There is also the problem of Blu-ray disc (and other man-made items) filling up the land-fields while stuff in nature is recycled back into the environment.

You completely missed my point, but that's hardly surprising.

Good post, TM.👍

 

[TankAss95]

👍 Exactly.I think it's fine that you ask questions, but it's not clear that you are taking in much of what is being said in reply to you. It would be nice to hear what you think about some of the responses to your questions rather than just firing off yet more questions that have been dealt with numerous times in this thread already.

Apologies I was busy.
The reason I asked about bold clotting was because I read about it and found it a very fascinating and complex function. I would be surprised if evolution could explain growth of this process through time (there seems to already be a model).

 

[homeforsummer]

Apologies I was busy.
The reason I asked about bold clotting was because I read about it and found it a very fascinating and complex function. I would be surprised if evolution could explain growth of this process through time (there seems to already be a model).

That's because you're still not taking into account that evolution isn't the process of one attribute simply improving over time. It's the net effect of several other things failing, disappearing from existence, leaving the ones that work. Over millions of years.

Your comment makes the assumption that blood clots were something that essentially formed out of nowhere, and steadily improved. That's rather than the contrary, common to basically all evolution, which is that millions of ineffective solutions to life's problems died out along the way.

As for your "I was busy" comment above, the best solution is to avoid posting until you can devote some time to it. At the moment it's incredibly frustrating trying to have a discussion with you because you ignore/don't respond to 80% of the posts we type.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Creationists seem convinced that design is the only possible explanation for any and all complexity, despite the evidence to the contrary. This blindness to alternative explanations for how complexity may arise compels them to believe that even the most complex of things, like living cells, must have been designed, even though their sheer complexity cries out for an alternative explanation. Those who claim that cells were designed need to back up their claims with something more substantial than the mere observation that cells are very complex. The design hypothesis remains wholly unsupported by evidence.

Science, on the other hand, has gained tremendous insights which explain how such complexity can arise without the need to invoke the existence of something even more complex in order to explain it.

Right. Every living cell known to man using ATP as it's main power source which the only natural way to produce is from a ATP synthase. If you could build an motor (plus a generator) as efficient as ATP synthase (extremly close to 100%) you would be a billionare. These machine has a rotor motor, coupling rods and pistons. The people would invented these probably never dream they were already in every cell in their body.
It would be easier to believe if given enough time a volcano could shoot out a Dell computer

 

[dylansan]

Your analogies are idiotic. Sorry to be frank, but seriously. Stop it.

You keep comparing completely different things, but lets look at this one in detail.

Believing a complex system could have evolved is nothing like believing a volcano could shoot out a complex object. Seriously? Stop being dense. Evolution is a process which increases complexity in a population over time. It doesn't just randomly spew out butterflies and gorillas and jellyfish. (That's God, remember?)

Here's a better analogy:

Believing evolution could create something so complex as an ATP synthase is like believing a volcano containing all the parts required in computer spit out a bunch of those parts, then whichever clumps of parts were least functional were destroyed and the rest reproduced (This is the key here. This is the only way evolution works), creating groups of similar parts with small variations, where again the least functional were destroyed in the rest reproduced again, a process which over billions of years resulted in clumps of parts which had the same function as a computer.

Cut the crap. Learn how evolution works. Watch this video to see how complex systems can evolve and what is required for them to do so, and pay attention to why your comparisons aren't anything like what evolution is.

 

[Exorcet]

Right. Every living cell known to man using ATP as it's main power source which the only natural way to produce is from a ATP synthase. If you could build an motor (plus a generator) as efficient as ATP synthase (extremly close to 100%) you would be a billionare. These machine has a rotor motor, coupling rods and pistons. The people would invented these probably never dream they were already in every cell in their body.
It would be easier to believe if given enough time a volcano could shoot out a Dell computer

A power supply system that has been refined over a few billion years having advantages over power generation that's only 100 years old is hardly surprising. Maybe you should wait until people have been making engines for as long as chemistry has for a fair comparison.

I don't see how complexity implies design. That doesn't make any sense at all. Have you never spilled something and seen it take a strange or interesting shape? Or scribbled something on paper or MS paint and found an unexpected image of something pop out of the mess?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

A power supply system that has been refined over a few billion years having advantages over power generation that's only 100 years old is hardly surprising. Maybe you should wait until people have been making engines for as long as chemistry has for a fair comparison.

I don't see how complexity implies design. That doesn't make any sense at all. Have you never spilled something and seen it take a strange or interesting shape? Or scribbled something on paper or MS paint and found an unexpected image of something pop out of the mess?

We have no evidence of any physical life form ever existed that didn't have this ATP synthase. There is no evidence this motor been refined over a few billion years or even if it's possible for a supercomputer to find the right genetic sequence to form this machine in 13 billion years.

P.S So you believe by spilling coffee it will give you the blueprint of a near 100% efficient motor?

 

[Exorcet]

We have no evidence of any physical life form ever existed that didn't have this ATP synthase.

That just means it came about early on.

There is no evidence this motor been refined over a few billion years or even if it's possible for a supercomputer to find the right genetic sequence to form this machine in 13 billion years.

My biology is rusty, but the Mitochondria is the motor while the synthase is just a component. Mitochondria supposedly came from early simple cells that were taken in by more complex cells, so there was probably some evolution going on there. And then there's also the billions of years during which the chemistry of life came about.

A single supercomputer is nothing compared to the universe, by the way.

P.S So you believe by spilling coffee it will give you the blueprint of a near 100% efficient motor?

Unlikely, though there is a higher chance of it making a splash that looks "designed".

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Cut the crap. Learn how evolution works. Watch this video to see how complex systems can evolve and what is required for them to do so, and pay attention to why your comparisons aren't anything like what evolution is.

This video may shows how a computer simulates intelligence (AI) but not evolution. Notice even changing the parameters you end up pretty much the same results. That's because the program itself has a "goal" built-in. (it's kind of like GT5 invisible walls that makes sure you stay on the track) You can also changes the parameters of a chess program to get different results which is more complex than this program.

 

[dylansan]

There is no "goal" - that would be if it selected the ones that were the closest to a target, which is not how it works.

The only thing that determines which watches survive in the simulation is which one is more functional, just as in real life. The creature more capable of surviving and mating in real life passes on its genes, which includes whatever genes made it more able to survive and reproduce.

The fact that you can change the parameters and still evolve only shows that evolution works under many different circumstances. The parameters were not "fine tuned" for it to work, it always worked.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

There is no "goal" - that would be if it selected the ones that were the closest to a target, which is not how it works.

The only thing that determines which watches survive in the simulation is which one is more functional, just as in real life. The creature more capable of surviving and mating in real life passes on its genes, which includes whatever genes made it more able to survive and reproduce.

The fact that you can change the parameters and still evolve only shows that evolution works under many different circumstances. The parameters were not "fine tuned" for it to work, it always worked.

Pretty much all computer program have a goal. In the program you have built-in data then you have a random search engine for the variables. You have to limit the number of variables or even a supercomputer couldn't find the solution. The computer are good for "trial and error" programs.

 

[Exorcet]

Pretty much all computer program have a goal. In the program you have built-in data then you have a random search engine for the variables. You have to limit the number of variables or even a supercomputer couldn't find the solution. The computer are good for "trial and error" programs.

Not goals. Laws, rules. If the program had a goal, it would have an end other than just passing a set number of generations which was only done because an infinitely running simulation would not be very practical.

 

[dylansan]

Pretty all computer program have a goal.

The goal is to calculate the results of a simulation based on set variables. The fact that a computer has to calculate the data doesn't mean it doesn't represent real life.

On Earth, things fall to the ground due to gravity. I want to know how long it takes a ball 100 meters from the ground to fall. I could test this in real lift, but that may be difficult. Instead, I make a computer simulation which uses the known acceleration of gravity to calculate the position of the ball over time until it moves 100 meters. The simulation is representing what happens in real life. Are you saying, because the computer has a "goal" to calculate the data, that somehow it is not a good representation of reality?

In the program you have built-in data then you have a random search engine for the variables.

What is this gibberish? No. Random search engine? What?

You have to limit the number of variables or even a supercomputer couldn't find the solution.

Yeah, exactly. All the variables in the simulation are variables that exist in real life. Population size, mutation rate, reproduction method, predators, etc. Why does the fact that the computer calculates data based on these inputs somehow make it a bad representation of reality, when that's exactly how all simulations work?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Yeah, exactly. All the variables in the simulation are variables that exist in real life.

If you are referring to something like bacteria anti-biotic resistance, Nylonase, or Lactase that can be repeated over and over since it's in the reach of trial and error then yes.

 

[niky]

We have no evidence of any physical life form ever existed that didn't have this ATP synthase. There is no evidence this motor been refined over a few billion years or even if it's possible for a supercomputer to find the right genetic sequence to form this machine in 13 billion years.

There's no evidence because ATP doesn't fossilize in a form that can be read billions of years later.

For all we know, there have been numerous solutions tried which didn't prosper.

Again, you're mistaking the fact that this is the only solution we use for the idea that this is the only possible solution or that this is the most elegant solution.

We're back to the random language generator and "antediluvian". You think because that's the word we have that that's the only word that can possibly fit. It isn't.

 

[dylansan]

If you are referring to something like bacteria anti-biotic resistance, Nylonase, or Lactase that can be repeated over and over since it's in the reach of trial and error then yes.

Yes what? It's very hard to understand your points when I'm not even sure what you're responding to. And please respond to the rest of the points I just made.

And I wasn't referring to bacteria or any of those other things, where did you get that?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Yes what? It's very hard to understand your points when I'm not even sure what you're responding to. And please respond to the rest of the points I just made.

And I wasn't referring to bacteria or any of those other things, where did you get that?

The programmer set up the variables so they are reachable by random search (trial and error). If the program fails the programmer would continue to work on the program until they get the desired results which would then be shown on the you-tube video. Some solution are easy to find through trial and error while others are not.
For example bacteria antibiotic resistance is often easy found through trial and error (mutation).

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

There's no evidence because ATP doesn't fossilize in a form that can be read billions of years later.

For all we know, there have been numerous solutions tried which didn't prosper.

Again, you're mistaking the fact that this is the only solution we use for the idea that this is the only possible solution or that this is the most elegant solution.

We're back to the random language generator and "antediluvian". You think because that's the word we have that that's the only word that can possibly fit. It isn't.

There is a difference between language, as we can make "antediluvian" mean anything, and proteins has to have the correct 3-D shape. It's more like finding the right combination of a safe with is governed by the laws of physics.

 

[dylansan]

The programmer set up the variables so they are reachable by random search (trial and error).

...


No, he didn't. This is an entirely baseless claim, and no one is going to take this argument seriously unless you have some evidence to back it up. Why don't you just accuse all of science of fudging the numbers to support evolution while you're at it. 👎

Put up or shut up. So far you haven't provided evidence for any of the claims you've tried to make.

If the program fails the programmer would continue to work on the program until they get the desired results which would then be shown on the you-tube video.

That's what a dishonest person who was insecure about their beliefs would do. That's not what happened here. Everything about the program is explained in the video. Heck, you can download it in the description! If you're going to argue that the simulation doesn't represent reality, you have to actually show what aspects are different and how they would change the result.

The fact that someone could make a misleading program does not mean every simulation is somehow invalid.

Some solution are easy to find through trial and error while others are not.
For example bacteria antibiotic resistance is often easy found through trial and error (mutation).

Support this with evidence or it's meaningless.

 

[niky]

There is a difference between language, as we can make "antediluvian" mean anything, and proteins has to have the correct 3-D shape. It's more like finding the right combination of a safe with is governed by the laws of physics.

You're assuming the safe has only one combination.

There are a limited set of combinations and possible methods of generating life, but mind you... it's a set, not a single, 64-bit encrypted password.

But this isn't quite like a random language generator, either, where it will spit out gibberish like "qwrsikel" more often than an actual word.

The geometries of nature declare that certain combinations, molecules and symmetries will be more probable than others. In other words, your password will most likely consist of discrete letter combinations than completely random gibberish. And molecules will, helpfully, fall into the same or similar combinations and geometries.

Given enough time, enough of the right kind of molecules will form to allow more complex geometries based on this. Mind you, not only does the first bacteria have to happen once, it has to happen a number of times to ensure that one survives.

Of course, this all leads us back to the question of whether an outside power is responsible for designing the Universe in such a way as to make all this possible, but then Evolution is only ever concerned with change, not with the prime cause of the Universe.

 

[Touring Mars]

Right. Every living cell known to man using ATP as it's main power source which the only natural way to produce is from a ATP synthase.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how different types of organism have slightly different ATP synthases, and why the protein subunits that make up the various parts of the structure exhibit the sort of sequence homology that is predicted by evolutionary theory? Each part of ATP synthase is made from amino acids whose sequences vary from organism to organism, not in a random way, but in an ordered way that is explained by common ancestry. Below is an example of a sequence alignment of amino acids from the c-subunit of F-ATP synthase for different organisms, compared to the human sequence at the top (differences are marked in red). As you can see, the sequences are different for different types of organism, with the greatest similarities between species of the same phylum. A similar comparison between animals (e.g. mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and amphibians) show much fewer differences, but they do exhibit small differences, as would be expected for closely related species.

Again, it comes back to this. If a designer had to design ATP synthase for every species on Earth, there would be many options - make them all the same, make them all different and assigned arbitrarily, make some the same and some different etc. - so why would a designer choose to make them all in such a way as to resemble what could happen by common descent??

Of course, ATP synthase is just one of millions of enzymes whose sequence data can now be determined and used to test the predictions and hypotheses generated by evolutionary theory. The same cannot be said for the design hypothesis, since the result is already known - no matter what the data might say, the hypothesis will not be rejected - therefore the data is effectively meaningless.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Perhaps you'd care to explain how different types of organism have slightly different ATP synthases, and why the protein subunits that make up the various parts of the structure exhibit the sort of sequence homology that is predicted by evolutionary theory? Each part of ATP synthase is made from amino acids whose sequences vary from organism to organism, not in a random way, but in an ordered way that is explained by common ancestry. Below is an example of a sequence alignment of amino acids from the c-subunit of F-ATP synthase for different organisms, compared to the human sequence at the top (differences are marked in red). As you can see, the sequences are different for different types of organism, with the greatest similarities between species of the same phylum. A similar comparison between animals (e.g. mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and amphibians) show much fewer differences, but they do exhibit small differences, as would be expected for closely related species.

Except there's one catch. Species of the same phylum doesn't have the same molecular clock yet somehow it looks as if they all do. If you factor in molecular clocks of each species the chart would look a lot different.

(there is also the problem with every sequence comparison you look at you will come up with a different tree. This is why some evolutionist have admitted the only tree of life that exist is in the human mind)

 

[wfooshee]

Factor in molecular clocks how, exactly? That chart isn't going back in time, it's looking at the species as they are right now.

What does the possibility of a molecular clock have to do with that?