In a prior post, we saw how the LA County Museum of Natural History contributed to the pressure exerted on the science of California to cancel a pro - ID, event Centre sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance. But there is a story to tell here shortly. When I was a student, a friend gave me a package entitled "classification: Graduate Student project", which explains the different methods for construction of phylogenetic trees. The package is a collection three-ring binder pages of a project conducted in 1983 by a student graduate-then at George Washington University, Kirk Fitzhugh. Its name came as I examine me the email correspondence related to his contract cancellation of the California Science Center to detect dilemma pro - ID, Darwin film. Some of the emails were written by Mr. Fitzhugh while others were sent to him. But I am getting ahead of myself.
Over the years, I sometimes mentioned in the package with amusement. Why? Because exercises using a set of data intelligently designed, artificial drawing little hypothetical creatures based on text, each given a unique set of features and characters.The student is supposed to analyze the data set and to use various methods of construction of the tree to rebuild given créatures.étant evolutionary relationships that this data set is designed to intelligently, and that creature does not share that common ancestor, exercise reminds me how it is easy to build scalable trees that have nothing to do with the history of evolution.
For example, go you to the empty, local gym to each record and catalogue content and then use these methods construct a hypothetical phylogenetic tree showing how this pair of shorts is related to this t-shirt, how this dryer shared ancestors with this product spray antiperspirant and thus of suite.Bien as tree that might result from prudent application of methods for systematists, it would be pure absurd. Could this happen in the construction of real phylogenetic trees of living organisms?
Let's take a hypothetical set of intelligently designed agencies whose similarities are not the result of a common ancestor.Assuming a common ancestor, you can still make a perfectly good evolutionary tree .the ' tree yet would be a simple construction based on assumptions - and completely false.
Hypothesis of the package, it is the biological similarity implies a common heritage (except when it isn't)-a pervasive assumption in the field of systematic.As a single article stipulates:
(In the same way, the package ignore characters allegedly resulting convergent - evolution as the package repeatedly reminds the reader "converging characters have no place in the taxonomy".)The package has, therefore, was a reminder for me-centred methodology support and weak underlying phylogenetic trees.(mostly), molecular systematics is based on the hypothesis first clearly formulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), the degree of overall similarity reflects parenté.Cette hypothesis degree derives from the interpretation of the molecular similarity or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continuous and progressive change.Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of the molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for "molecular hypothesis."...For historians and philosophers of science, the issues are emerging belief in the infallibility of molecular data to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships and how this belief has become so central...
(Jeffrey h. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca, "" do molecular clocks run at all? A critique of molecular systematics, "biological theory, vol. 1 (4): 357-371, (2006).")
Complementary responses to Mr. Fitzhugh will in some future posts.
This entry transmitted via the service for full-text RSS - if this is your content and you read on someone to another site, please read our FAQ page fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Article five filters features: After Hiroshima - non-rapport Cancer Catastrophe of Fallujah.
No comments:
Post a Comment