Sherlock Holmes wrote: > > The point I was getting at is that some one posted the following: > "The markers used in these sorts of tests are in the junk DNA. Since > they don't code for genes, there is no selection pressure on them, so > they make better molecular clocks. If they did code for genes, then > some mutations would be lost because they were fatal. But with junk DNA > all the mutations stick around, because they don't matter, so you can, > with an assumed mutation rate, measure when two lines diverged." > Now take note in the last line it clearly says Assumed that means it is > not exact it is guessed at and has not been proven in any way shape of > form. That is not what it meant, as I explained elsewhere. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@nj.net -- AB2SB