Dear Dr Page,
You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus....
I say:
That is an assumption. As posted today, even mutations induced by radioactivity seem to be non-random, i.e on hotspots. From NDT perspectives this has NO explanation.
....and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
I say:
If you admit that it IS a little falsification, than evolution theory is not complete, or worse, wrong. Certainly, it is NOT a fact!!
You say:
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
I say:
It can be found in most recent evolutionary studiebooks, for instance in "Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach" by Dr. Roderick Page. I already gave you the references. [And you still owe me an apology regarding a false accusation when I referred to this Dr Page, while you though I referred to you.]
You say:
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
I say:
That's good for the hype, although it doesn't proof anything.
You say:
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
I say:
I thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with speculations, as long as they are presented as speculations and not as fact. And thanks for calling me a 'tired old creationist'. I am not tired and not old. You don't learn it, isn't it Dr Page?
You say:
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
I say:
Anomalies demonstrate the theory not to be correct. Ask any physicist about anomalies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself.
I say:
No, Mark24 was the first to mention him. I know who he is what he holds, and I know why I am an opponent of his visions.
You say:
You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?
I say:
Sounds a lot better than the usual statements that it is a fact. Evolution theory is all but a fact. Only by the complete ignorance of all implications of contemporary molecular biology it can be propagated as fact. That is what happens in the media.
And, I recommend you to get used to non-random mutations. Soon they will be introduced in evolution theory.
Finally, I assume you do not want to discuss the human ZFY region, since you edited it out? Another little falsification?
Best wishes,
Peter
™ Version 4.2