Genes in the absence of fossils: conjectures of molecular evolution

In the absence of fossils, scientists turn to genes to make near-conceived guesses about the supposed evolutionary relationships between organisms and their dates; this field is called the "molecular clock". Different studies of different molecules have produced very divergent data, in addition to the studies I have cited. Take a 1997 paper by Japanese biologist Naru Niko and colleagues, which examines the genes Aldolase and Isomerase Triosephosphate isomerase, and they set a date of 940 million years for the separation of the true eumetazoa and chalices parazoa, among animals with succulents. Blair Hedges based on the study of 50 different genes, which showed that basic animal populations (Porifera spongiforms, Cnidaria spongiformes and Ctenophora mastoids) have diverged roughly between 1200-1500 million years. For example, while the paper of evolutionary biologist Lindel Bromham and his colleagues, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, divides divergence times in the same article by about 30 million. They analyzed two different molecules (mitochondrial DNA mtDNA) and (Ribose RNA 18S-rRNA), they explicitly state that they have individual divergence dates that differ by only 27 billion years. Bioinformatics specialists Stefan Aris Burso of the University of Ottawa and Xiheng Yang of the University of London have also found that, depending on the gene used and methods of estimation, the last ancestor of protostomes or deuterostomes may have lived at any time between 452 million and 2 billion years ago. In a recent survey of deep divergence studies by molecular evolution experts Dan Grauer and William Martin, one study in which the authors claim to be 95 percent certain that a divergence date falls within the range of 14.2 billion years – three times the age of the Earth – was clearly a meaningless outcome.26 Grauer and Martin concluded that many molecular clock estimates "appear to be misleadingly accurate", but that given the nature of the field, their "advice to the reader is: wherever he sees a time estimate in evolutionary literature, he should suspect."27 The title of their paper, published in the journal Trends in Genetics (Reading Chicken Moths: Molecular Time Scales of Evolution and the Illusion of Accuracy), clearly expressed this. - Dr. Steven Meyer. — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02vuJomW5PCZAR3PNyr6Hpeu5AWYNE8n5svz9Vzd24642SHBHJWNbPtcmrWjFQApLTl