It could be. But most likely it relates to something that changes in
human embryos between weeks 7 and 19, and which does not change in
other species.

right, it's just an inherent difference
in humans and other organisms.

that's all you get from that.

it's not an amount of -change- that can be
established, but only an amount of -difference-.

you won't be able to use these dubious molecular
clocks to support -change- from one organism to the other.

but, they may simply be telling you that the
absence of a reliably direct linear time relationship
is telling you that there is none to be found.

what you need to address is the mechanism that would
account -for- such enrichment of -new- genetic materials
and show how this should act in an irregular manner
with respect to time displacement.

usually, Darwinian evolution maintains that it is the
pre-existing strength of the genome that allows for
an organism to adapt successfully to varied
surroundings and the like.

Incoherent misrepresentation.

no, it is a genetic richness that
affords an organisms adaptability.

but you would be claiming that -new- genetic materials
are being manufactured over time

Mutations tend to do that, yes.

no, the neutral theory tends to suggest
that most mutations are neutral.

for instance, you would be saying that a worm,
manufactured extra genetic materials which lay
dormant on the organism while it was rewritten over
time to manufacture a new leg apparatus which simply
expressed itself in response to no apparent
environmental stress and found that the
new organism simply survived.

That is one plausible explanation for the large amount of noncoding
data on the genome. That it is accumulated mutations that are waiting
for the conditions wherein they might be useful.

you have genes that do nothing after gestation periods
but which are certainly necessary during gestation,
so you cannot suggest that these sites are fee to
rewrite themselves during the course
of successive generations.

but, it's survival during the rewrite periods
when extra chromosome materials oftentimes are
lethal is another problem.

That is why they call it "selection". Those who extra materials are
lethal don't survive. The rest of them live.

the lethal bits -are- the extra chromosomes.

and when you get to purely sexually reproducing
organsisms, such dormant extra chromosomes
are highly implausible.

You may think them implausible, but the reality is that our genome has
a lot of non-coding regions.

it has much -duplication-

but this duplication is necessary during gestation
while not necessary after juvenile periods.

much of the locations you do not know what they do,
do very specific things during gestation periods.

there is no good mechanism to account for this.

Obviously, there is.

in sexually reporducing species, offspring spits
out extra chromosome sets and these chromosome sets
lay dormant on the organism while they are
rewritten to form new apparati.

to suggest that cultivated brassicas spit out extra
chromosomes when they revert to wild type forms and
then translate this to an entirely different form
of cell division and propose it for sexual reproduction
is implausible, and yet, that is the mechanism you may see proposed.

but what you see in practice is that
extra chromosome sets are all
too often lethal.

so, you get stuck suggesting that some slow
regular pattern of point mutations must
be taking place, and this should have a
certain regularity across the organism.

Not necessarily.

that's the basis for the molecular clocks.

point by point codon reconfiguration.

If the assumption leads to a useful predictive result, then that
supports the validity of the assumption as a hypothesis.

and it does not do this.

in fact you citation says just this.

Because he IS trying to make political points. And apparently not
realizing that the only political point he is making is that he is
clueless about everything he posts.

but his paraphrase of the artical was not dishonest.