What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted.
So you said. But you ignored that we've known that DNA is the molecule of heredity for 100 years. That's not "infancy".
Furthermore you've ignored the fact that molecular phylogenetics is based entirely on the same principles as DNA paternity testing, which has been used over and over again as evidence in court.
If it's good enough for the courtroom, there's no way you can say that its in it's "infancy". You don't get to say that the conclusions aren't "warranted" simply because you don't like them.
The technology is
not "in it's infancy." It's a well-developed science and the focus of billions in research dollars and corporate research. You can buy a DNA sequencing machine via mail-order. It fits on your desktop. We're way beyond infancy here, except for the infancy of your arguments.
I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
This is disproved by the existence of animals like the Tazmanian wolf, who are very similar in form to placental wolves, but whose DNA is radically different.
Furthermore, the regions of DNA that we use to substantiate phylogeny are regions that have nothing to do with form.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Not in the least. The existence of new evidence doesn't mean the old evidence wasn't sufficient. Of course, no evidence could be sufficient for you.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:18 PM