Evolutionary Tree vs Molecular Data

Twenty-two international researchers led by Ludovic Orlando of the University of Lyon in France completed a very comprehensive comparison of ancient DNA (aDNA) from fossil equids (including horses, donkeys and zebras).  Let me tell you, this wasn’t pretty research for evolution, but of course they still like to brag about the fossil record…Here is what the paper said…

“The rich fossil record of the family Equidae (Mammalia: Perissodactyla) over the past 55 MY has made it an icon for the patterns and processes of macroevolution.  Despite this, many aspects of equid phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy remain unresolved.  Recent genetic analyses of extinct equids have revealed unexpected evolutionary patterns and a need for major revisions at the generic, subgeneric, and species levels.

To investigate this issue we examine 35 ancient equid specimens from four geographic regions (South America, Europe, Southwest Asia, and South Africa), of which 22 delivered 87–688 bp of reproducible aDNA mitochondrial sequence.  Phylogenetic analyses support a major revision of the recent evolutionary history of equids and reveal two new species, a South American hippidion and a descendant of a basal lineage potentially related to Middle Pleistocene equids.

Sequences from specimens assigned to the giant extinct Cape zebra, Equus capensis, formed a separate clade within the modern plain zebra species, a phenotypicically plastic group that also included the extinct quagga.  In addition, we revise the currently recognized extinction times for two hemione-related equid groups.

However, it is apparent that the current dataset cannot solve all of the taxonomic and phylogenetic questions relevant to the evolution of Equus.  In light of these findings, we propose a rapid DNA barcoding approach to evaluate the taxonomic status of the many Late Pleistocene fossil Equidae species that have been described from purely morphological analyses.”

The results of this research were so shocking, suggestions of revamping not just part but the entire horse series! It’s similar to geology where they go back to the drawing board if the data registers in the thousands of years rather than millions.  Why? Because they concluded that many specimens relegated to separate species are actually variations on the same species which verifies the Bible. Not only that, but their findings found not slow and gradual but sudden bursts of diversification! This is great stuff!

By comparing outward features of skeletons, evolutionists built a structure of  what they call; morphological analyses.  A good story line but the actual molecular data in which they studied (ancient DNA) doesn’t match up! Nevertheless, they tried to force their findings into the evolutionary tree. So we see more story built complexity (evolution) on top of more story built complexity which resulted in confusion, disjunction, and irresolution.

They are quick to claim micro-evolution but the DNA data is showing that equids appear morphologically different but are really just variations of the same kinds! There is a lesson to be learned here, appearance is not always what it seems. The problems where so severe they left it up to future research to explain all the complexity that was created with the DNA which is not matching up with the hypothesis.

Science Daily misleads it’s readers on purpose by avoiding the reality stated above in the actual research paper that the findings do in fact challenge the evolutionary theory!

About these ads

3 thoughts on “Evolutionary Tree vs Molecular Data

  1. Drone Michael: “The results of this research were so shocking, suggestions of revamping not just part but the entire horse series!’

    Shocking. Yes, shocking. That scientists should revise their theories when new, more reliable evidence comes to light. Creationists, of course, never do this. Small differences thought to indicate closely related species turn out to be4 variation within a species. Some species branch points from nearby times turn out to be in a different temporal order. And please to note the call for further research, longer sequences which may lead to further revisions.[1]

    Ah yes, research again. Who was it who showed the previous relationships to be incorrect? Creationists? BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAHAAA. Creationists have never done any research in any scientific field. Why should they? They already know they’re correct; more knowledge could only prove them wrong.

    And we have yet another failure of reading comprehension by Michael’s chthonic source.[2] The new findings provide zero support for creationism. The time lines remain unaltered–more than 50 million years before the present. The morphological changes remain unaltered—from a fox-sized 5-toed animal losing toes and becoming longer-legged and much larger, with stronger teeth to chew the co-evolving silica-laced grasses. NEWS! Rearranging the evolutionary tree offers no evidence that there was no evolutionary tree. Creationists must develop their own positive evidence for that—and, as we have seen above, creationists shun anything that looks like scientific investigation.

    Creationists fear science. The knowledge gaps in which they hide become smaller and smaller, leading them to redouble their efforts to deny, distort, or ignore inconvenient findings.

    ===============
    [1] Michael: “The problems where so severe they left it up to future research to explain all the complexity that was created with the DNA which is not matching up with the hypothesis.”

    This one was a real toot, Michael! First, anyone except a creationist can see that the “future research” calls for longer aDNA sequences from fossil horses, not to “explain” any “complexity.” Do you rreally assume your readers are that stupid?

    [2] Michael himself has already demonstrated his utter lack of qualifications even to read the scientific literature. See Olorin Nov 30, 2009 at 11:28 pm comment under “Exposed ’science’ of Man-Made Global Warming!”

  2. Michael’s source: “The results of this research were so shocking, suggestions of revamping not just part but the entire horse series! ”

    In chemical experiments, even Michael does not pounce upon experimental inaccuracies of a few percent as evidence that God has come down on odd Tuesday afternoons and modified the reactants. Yet in evolutionary research, where there are trillions of possible phylogenetic trees for even a few dozen species, the rearrangement of a few points—which amounts to a tiny fraction of a per cent error–are trumpeted as errors large enough to destroy an entire theory.

    You probably missed an important 1982 article in Nature [1] that tested evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees independently derived from a number of different proteins, and found experimental agreement to within a truly tiny error. The paper is apropos here because it calculated the possible number of trees for the null hypothesis (independent creation). Of course, you could calculate this number yourself, since it is after all a relatively simple problem in combinatorics……..

    Amazing. Creationists have long ago given up trying to wedge God into the equations of physics or the reactions of chemistry. Yet they persist in the history of biological species.

    ======================
    [1] Penny, et al., Nature 297, 197-200 (20 May 1982). Or, alternatively, you couldn’t understand it.

  3. Olorin: “Creationists have long ago given up trying to wedge God into the equations of physics or the reactions of chemistry. Yet they persist in the history of biological species.”

    Well, that is their last hope, isn’t it? Nothing left after evolution.

    ==Soc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s