Page 212 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences

determine primate relationships, D. Melnick and G. Hoelzer of
Columbia University provide the following information:
Our results suggest serious problems with use of mtDNA to esti-
mate "true" population genetic structure, to date cladogenic
[branching evolution] events, and in some cases, to construct phylo-
genies. 27

The most important of these problems is the way these evolu-
tionist scientists are blindly devoted to the theory of evolution. For
this reason, research on the subject of evolution is not carried out ob-
jectively, and there is an attempt to make the data fit the theory of evo-
lution. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy of Cornell University makes this
comment:

This practice of forcing the paleontological and archaeological data
to conform to the evolutionary and genetic models continues in
reinterpretations of dates based upon the molecular clock of mito-
chondrial DNA as well as radiometric samples… 28
Pääbo's study on Neanderthal mtDNA is a typical example of
this. According to the Cambridge University anthropologist Robert

Foley, Pääbo and his team's study "shows plainly the futility of trying
to interpret genes without knowing so much more—about selection
and drift, about processes of cultural transmission, about history and
geography, about fossils, about anthropology, about statistics." 29

E Ev o l l u t t i i o n i i s t t s ' ' C o n f f e s s s i i o n s o n
v
volutionists' Confessions on
u
o
o
n
s
s
C
o
n
n
n
s
o
s
e
E Evolutionists' Confessions on
o
o
S So - - C a l l l l e d H u m a n E v o l l u t t i i o n
o-Called Human Evolution
v
E
S So-Called Human Evolution
o
n
o
u
e
u
d
H
m
a
n
C
a
No matter how loudly the NAS claims, in order to convince its
readership, that there is no serious scientific doubt about human evo-
lution, this is far from the case. The so-called evolution of man is one
of the greatest dilemmas facing the theory of evolution. An article in
210