Page 155 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The NAS's Error in Portraying Molecular Biology as
Evidence of Evolution

evolutionary divergence, or incorrect taxonomic placement of an or-
ganism in the wrong family...

... However the difference between the turtle and rattlesnake of 21
amino acid residues per 100 codons is notably larger than many
differences between representatives of widely separated classes,
for example, 17 between chicken and lamprey, or 16 between horse
and dogfish, or even 15 between dog and screw worm fly in two
different phyla. 13
As the numbers of such studies increases, it becomes ever clearer
that comparisons at the molecular level conflict with the theory of

evolution. Many evolutionist biologists have had to admit this fact.
For example, the French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick
Forterre admitted in an article in 1999 that "with more and more se-
quences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies con-
tradict each other as well as the rRNA tree." 14

The molecular biologists James Kale, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera
from the University of California wrote in 1999:
…[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different or-
ganisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted
the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis
alone. 15

Biologist Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, who is
renowned for his work on establishing family trees based on RNA-
based comparisons, made the following comment on the conflicting
nature of his results in an article published in the NAS's Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):
No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many
individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic in-
congruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its

153