The code that is DNA

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't have access to those papers but I do have an access to "Campbell Biology" which is a textbook for high school and college-level classes.

For instance you deny Phylogenie saying that it is just a hypotheses and you say it is not testable. You also seem to claim that relatedness is always an assumption without the absence of known ancestry, which you seem to say that one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness. And yet this is what "Campbell Biology" says

So are you saying that writers of biology textbook know less genetic science that you do?

First, since you're asking me to comment on the excerpt from Campbell, I'm treating this conversation as separate from the quote mining/distortion conversation.

Secondly, since you're disagreeing with me on several points, I want to clarify what they are:

1. That phylogenies are hypotheses.
2. That they are not (or are rarely) testable.
3. That relatedness is an assumption in the absence of known ancestry.
4. That one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness.

I read your excerpt from Campbell. I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're disagreeing with me on before addressing it. Have I represented the points you oppose with the four mentioned above?

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is nothing to disagree with.Your 4 statements are false.And are rejected by mainstream biology.

---

My references are on the table. Look through them; if I've distorted them you're welcome to expose me. My offer to send the papers, if anyone can't access them, extends to you as well.

I don't plan to go through 36 pages of this topic, but I do remember one post that I saw where you referenced some papers, like this:

In the absence of known ancestry, relatedness is always an assumption. Homoplasy (such as convergence or reversals) often breaks with this assumption because trait or genetic similarity is not a true indicator of relatedness. (Wake, et al., 2011). Phylogenies are indeed hypotheses (though I disagree they're testable); they attempt to predict various ways in which the relatedness assumption could have played out.

Reference: Wake, D. B., M. H. Wake, and C. D. Specht. 2011. Homoplasy: From detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science 331: 1032–1035.

I don't have access to those papers but I do have an access to "Campbell Biology" which is a textbook for high school and college-level classes.

For instance you deny Phylogenie saying that it is just a hypotheses and you say it is not testable. You also seem to claim that relatedness is always an assumption without the absence of known ancestry, which you seem to say that one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness. And yet this is what "Campbell Biology" says

An organism’s evolutionary history is documented in its genome

As you have seen in this chapter, comparisons of nucleic acids or other molecules can be used to deduce relatedness. In some cases, such comparisons can reveal phylogenetic relationships that cannot be determined by nonmolecular methods such as comparative anatomy. For example, the analysis of molecular data helps us uncover evolutionary relationships between groups that have little common ground for morphological comparison, such as animals and fungi. And molecular methods allow us to reconstruct phylogenies among groups of present-day organisms for which the fossil record is poor or lacking entirely.

Different genes can evolve at different rates, even in the same evolutionary lineage. As a result, molecular trees can represent short or long periods of time, depending on which genes are used. For example, the DNA that codes for ribosomal RNA (rRNA) changes relatively slowly. Therefore, comparisons of DNA sequences in these genes are useful for investigating relationships between taxa that diverged hundreds of millions of years ago. Studies of rRNA sequences indicate, for instance, that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. In contrast, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evolves relatively rapidly and can be used to explore recent evolutionary events. One research team has traced the relationships among Native American groups through their mtDNA sequences. The molecular findings corroborate other evidence that the Pima of Arizona, the Maya of Mexico, and the Yanomami of Venezuela are closely related, probably descending from the first of three waves of immigrants that crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to the Americas about 15,000 years ago.

Gene Duplications and Gene Families
What do molecular data reveal about the evolutionary history of genome change? Consider gene duplication, which plays a particularly important role in evolution because it increases the number of genes in the genome, providing more opportunities for further evolutionary changes. Molecular techniques now allow us to trace the phylogenies of gene duplications. These molecular phylogenies must account for repeated duplications that have resulted in gene families, groups of related genes within an organism’s genome (see Figure 21.11). Accounting for such duplications leads us to distinguish two types of homologous genes (Figure 26.18): orthologous genes and paralogous genes. In orthologous genes the homology is the result of a speciation event and hence occurs between genes found in different species (see Figure 26.18a). For example, the genes that code for cytochrome c (a protein that functions in electron transport chains) in humans and dogs are orthologous. In paralogous genes (from the Greek para, in parallel), the homology results from gene duplication; hence, multiple copies of these genes have diverged from one another within a species (see Figure 26.18b). In Concept 23.1, you encountered the example of olfactory receptor genes, which have undergone many gene duplications in vertebrates; humans have 380 functional copies of these paralogous genes, while mice have 1,200. Note that orthologous genes can only diverge after speciation has taken place, that is, after the genes are found in separate gene pools. For example, although the cytochrome c genes in humans and dogs serve the same function, the gene’s sequence in humans has diverged from that in dogs in the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. Paralogous genes, on the other hand, can diverge within a species because they are present in more than one copy in the genome. The paralogous genes that make up the olfactory receptor gene family in humans have diverged from each other during our long evolutionary history. They now specify proteins that confer sensitivity to a wide variety of molecules, ranging from food odors to sex pheromones.

So are you saying that writers of biology textbook know less genetic science that you do?

His response is a joke

[Paleophyte]

1. That phylogenies are hypotheses.

Wrong. Do you actually know anything about phyletics?

2. That they are not (or are rarely) testable.

Dead wrong. How else do you think we produce, revise, and discard them? There are entire journals devoted to little else.

3. That relatedness is an assumption in the absence of known ancestry.

It's an assumption that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Can we assume that you know how basic inference works?

4. That one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness.

I wonder how you think paternity tests work.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I removed my comment. I rather wait for Fake Messiah to respond before replying to another users.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Phyletics lol; and yes, this isn't controversial, they're hypotheses.

Maintain  you ignorance

---

1. That phylogenies are hypotheses.

Wrong. Do you actually know anything about phyletics?

2. That they are not (or are rarely) testable.

Dead wrong. How else do you think we produce, revise, and discard them? There are entire journals devoted to little else.

3. That relatedness is an assumption in the absence of known ancestry.

It's an assumption that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Can we assume that you know how basic inference works?

4. That one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness.

I wonder how you think paternity tests work.

Truth

[Fake Messiah]

I removed my comment. I rather wait for Fake Messiah to respond before replying to another users.

My reply is: read a high school biology textbook.

[John 6IX Breezy]

My reply is: read a high school biology textbook.

I already have; I own that textbook lol. If you turn back one page from the one you quoted, you'll find a whole section on why phylogenies are hypothesis.

Page 562 in the 11th edition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Specific phylogenies are a hypothesis, John, not the notion itself.

Do you understand? You either accept that paternity tests work, or you don't. We know that it's at least possible for a paternity test to be wrong - maximum confidence approaches, but never reaches, 100%.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Specific phylogenies are a hypothesis, John, not the notion itself.

What does the "notion" of phylogenies even mean lol?

[Fake Messiah]

Specific phylogenies are a hypothesis, John, not the notion itself.

What does the "notion" of phylogenies even mean lol?

It means that Phylogeny is a fundamental concept, and phylogenetic trees are important tools in evolutionary biology; phylogenetic trees show a way that aligns well with an accurate understanding of the overall process of evolution.

Phylogenetic tree represent and tell us speciation events. Like some animal species that lived and changed over millions of years. How populations evolved as a result of mutation, genetic drift, and selection for millions years as time moved.