I'll say this much for you, mental case,
there seems little hope of you ever
being effectively treated for your
severe personality disorders.

I'm laughing at you, sick fuck...

instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...

Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5364/675.summary

Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.

Why?  Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past.  And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.

Strangely, "Science" <spit>  <spit>  deals
with this error by compounding it.

Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error.  Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...

Meaning, what?  All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?

I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:

: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
:  derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
:  very slow clock has the common ancestor of
:  monkeys and humans co-existing with the
:  last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431

They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.

Which brings us full circle, don't it?  Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.

Idiocy...