Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Huge discordance between gene trees in a new phylogenetic study

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

\

A friend alerts us to this Abstract:

Angiosperms represent one of the most spectacular terrestrial radiations on the planet1, but their early diversification and phylogenetic relationships remain uncertain2,3,4,5. A key reason for this impasse is the paucity of complete genomes representing early-diverging angiosperms. Here, we present high-quality, chromosomal-level genome assemblies of two aquatic species—prickly waterlily (Euryale ferox; Nymphaeales) and the rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum; Ceratophyllales)—and expand the genomic representation for key sectors of the angiosperm tree of life. We identify multiple independent polyploidization events in each of the five major clades (that is, Nymphaeales, magnoliids, monocots, Ceratophyllales and eudicots). Furthermore, our phylogenomic analyses, which spanned multiple datasets and diverse methods, confirm that Amborella and Nymphaeales are successively sister to all other angiosperms. Furthermore, these genomes help to elucidate relationships among the major subclades within Mesangiospermae, which contain about 350,000 species. In particular, the species-poor lineage Ceratophyllales is supported as sister to eudicots, and monocots and magnoliids are placed as successively sister to Ceratophyllales and eudicots. Finally, our analyses indicate that incomplete lineage sorting may account for the incongruent phylogenetic placement of magnoliids between nuclear and plastid genomes.

Yang, Y., Sun, P., Lv, L. et al. Prickly waterlily and rigid hornwort genomes shed light on early angiosperm evolution. Nat. Plants (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0594-6

The paper is open access.

From the paper: “Thus, what might account for this deep phylogenetic incongruence between nuclear and plastid genomes? As multiple independent polyploidization events were identified in magnoliids, monocots, Ceratophyllales and eudicots (Fig. 1), allopolyploidization or hybridization is one probable source of genomic discordance.”

“Deep phylogenetic incongruence” sounds like journalspeak for “our current phylogenetic tree is a hot mess.”

Comments
@66 JVL
I’m not here to be converted or to convert.
But you surely can make inferences. Are you a consciouss being or are you not?Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 65: The materialist side can not account for consciousness. Since you (we all) are a consciouss being(s), just make the inference. There is a disagreement, a real gulf. I'm just noting the situation and what I think the core difference is. I'm not here to be converted or to convert. I am not your adversary. But there seems to be a real us-vs-them attitude which seems to mean that every commenter is judged and relegated into one camp or the other. If no one accepts any kind of middle ground then should we give up finding a resolution?JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
@60 JVL
One side is right and one side is wrong.
- The materialist side can not account for consciousness. Since you (we all) are a consciouss being(s), just make the inference.Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
ET, 62: Except for the fact there is no way to test that claim. Again, I am just pointing out the gulf. And what I think the crux of the matter is.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
ET, 61: No, really because thinking and demonstrating are two very different things. Einstein didn’t get his glory until after the 1919 solar eclipse in which his equation was demonstrated to be true. I was trying to explain why demonstrating unguided processes are capable would not be big news. It's because that's been the assumption of the majority of scientists so there would be no need to celebrate it. I don’t believe you I could be wrong. It's my impression. They want it buried and forgotten. The paper was great when evos thought it refuted something Behe said. Now they realize it puts the nails in unguided evolution’s coffin. It's not been buried, clearly. I just think it's implications have been interpreted differently. And there isn’t any dispute. Just people in denial who have nothing better to offer. Huge difference. Again, there is a dispute, that is clear. And it's also clearly not going to go away anytime soon. You are denying the design inference. You are denying how science works. I'm merely pointing out that a lot of scientists do not accept the design inference. I'm just observing.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JVL:
IF you think that there is no design then everything we observe is due to unguided processes.
Except for the fact there is no way to test that claim.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
JVL:
Not really because that’s what the mainstream has thought for quite a while.
No, really because thinking and demonstrating are two very different things. Einstein didn't get his glory until after the 1919 solar eclipse in which his equation was demonstrated to be true.
Most working biologists (and scientists in general) think there is no design in biological evolution.
I don't believe you
I haven’t specifically looked for comments on that paper but it’s clear if it was considered a major game changer then there would be a lot of comments and upheaval.
They want it buried and forgotten. The paper was great when evos thought it refuted something Behe said. Now they realize it puts the nails in unguided evolution's coffin. And there isn't any dispute. Just people in denial who have nothing better to offer. Huge difference. You are denying the design inference. You are denying how science works.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 58: There is a mind behind all of ‘reality’ or there is not. One side has to win. One side is right and one side is wrong. Whether or not one will win is something we're going to have to wait for. Unless there's a third way . . . I'm not sure what that would be but I like to keep an open mind.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
ET, 56, : I don’t carte. I know they don’t have anything to refute what I say. Fine! I'm not trying to convince anyone. There is only a dispute because of personal biases. We have the science, they do not. They can disagree with that but reality is against them. You may be right. I'm only pointing out there is disagreement. And that it's unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. And, I THINK (personal opinion), it revolves around the acceptance or non-acceptance of the design inference. IF you think that design is obvious and ubiquitous then the constant and unending assumption it doesn't exist sounds like madness. IF you think that there is no design then everything we observe is due to unguided processes. I don't have an answer.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
@54 JVL
And it is okay to have disagreements;
There is a mind behind all of 'reality' or there is not. One side has to win.Truthfreedom
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
ET, 55: Yes, it is because they haven’t. If they had it would have been big news. Not really because that's what the mainstream has thought for quite a while. Good for them. We are still waiting for their testable hypotheses. Okay. They who? Why isn’t in peer-review? Why can’t you link to it? Why hasn’t anyone refuted that paper? What do you want me to say? Most working biologists (and scientists in general) think there is no design in biological evolution. So all the research published would be considered in support of that view. I haven't specifically looked for comments on that paper but it's clear if it was considered a major game changer then there would be a lot of comments and upheaval. I am not going to budge because then facts and science support me. And all you have is your continued bluffing and denial. I'm not bluffing or denying anything. I am merely pointing out that there is a dispute. I am trying really hard to acknowledge that and be respectful.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
JVL:
Again, other disagree with your interpretations of the implications of that paper.
I don't carte. I know they don't have anything to refute what I say. There is only a dispute because of personal biases. We have the science, they do not. They can disagree with that but reality is against them.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
JVL:
It’s not BS that they think they have.
Yes, it is because they haven't. If they had it would have been big news.
Again, there are a lot of people who disagree...
Good for them. We are still waiting for their testable hypotheses.
They think they have...
They who? Why isn't in peer-review? Why can't you link to it? Why hasn't anyone refuted that paper? I am not going to budge because then facts and science support me. And all you have is your continued bluffing and denial.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
ET, 52: Trichromatic vison requires more than two specific mutations. And it relates to the primate lineage. That means there isn’t enough time in the universe for unguided processes to produce trichromatic vision. Again, other disagree with your interpretations of the implications of that paper. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying other people say you're wrong. You can disagree with the facts but that will just expose your personal bias and your denial of the science. Me pointing out there is a dispute is just stating a fact. And it is okay to have disagreements; sometimes that's how progress is made because both sides work to figure out the truth.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
ET, 49: That is total BS. I KNOW they haven’t. And I also know that you will never find anything showing that they have. It's not BS that they think they have. You disagree. We're not resolving the issue and I don't think we can. 50: And I know the people who disagree with the design inference don’t have a scientific alternative. Again, there are a lot of people who disagree and we are not going to be able to resolve the issue. Except that is not how science works. Again, the two sides are not going to agree. Then have them demonstrate why I am wrong. No one has been able to do that yet. They think they have, you think they haven't. We're not getting anywhere which why I think it's not sensible to argue here. They can’t even simulate their claims on a computer. They have nothing but their denial of the design inference Okay. 51: Intelligent Design has the scientific methodology to test its claims. Unguided evolution doesn’t even have that. That alone tells us everything. I've got nothing else to say. You're not going to budge and those who think the design inference is incorrect are not going to budge. It would be nice to find some middle ground but I don't think it's going to happen.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.
Trichromatic vison requires more than two specific mutations. And it relates to the primate lineage. That means there isn't enough time in the universe for unguided processes to produce trichromatic vision. You can disagree with the facts but that will just expose your personal bias and your denial of the science.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Intelligent Design has the scientific methodology to test its claims. Unguided evolution doesn't even have that. That alone tells us everything.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
JVL:
I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with the design inference.
And I know the people who disagree with the design inference don't have a scientific alternative.
Again, if a researcher is convinced there is no design then they would think their work supports unguided processes.
Except that is not how science works.
Well, clearly there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your reading of the implications of that paper.
Then have them demonstrate why I am wrong. No one has been able to do that yet. They can't even simulate their claims on a computer. They have nothing but their denial of the design inferenceET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
JVL:
They think they have, you think they haven’t.
That is total BS. I KNOW they haven't. And I also know that you will never find anything showing that they have.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
ET, 46: And yet they cannot demonstrate such a thing. So they lose. They think they have, you think they haven't. I'm not sure it's worth arguing about if it just comes down to accepting the design inference, i.e. there's not much else to say about it.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
ET, 44: The only people who disagree with that clearly do not understand how science works. Sir Isaac Newton laid it all out in Principia. It is a fact that the way to refute any given design inference is to slice off the designer requirement with Occam’s razor. And to do that you just have to demonstrate tat nature can do it with any intelligent agency involvement. That is how it works with forensics. That is also how it works with archaeology. So I will stick to reality. You can have your disagreements because they are meaningless. I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with the design inference. And if there is no design then everything we observe is down to unguided processes and therefore it has been demonstrated. I know you disagree but I don't see a way to resolve the issue. hen they should publish it in peer-review. Until then it is meaningless. Again, if a researcher is convinced there is no design then they would think their work supports unguided processes. There is a peer-reviewed paper titled “Waiting for TWO Mutations” which totally refutes Dawkins’ idea of cumulative selection. For example, it all but proves that trichromatic vision is out of the reach of unguided processes. Well, clearly there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your reading of the implications of that paper. I don't know what else to say; there are two sides which seem unable to compromise.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
JVL:
Anyway, I think there are intelligent people that think that unguided processes have been discerned to be up to the task.
And yet they cannot demonstrate such a thing. So they lose.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, 43: opinions are of no account. Were there an actual demonstration, there would be Nobel prizes. There are not, that speaks. I'm not sure what Nobel category they'd be in . . . hmm . . . Anyway, I think there are intelligent people that think that unguided processes have been discerned to be up to the task. Likewise, I think there are intelligent people who think they haven't. I'm saying it's a matter of opinion because it seems the nicest way to discuss the situation. You may find some data compelling, I may not. I may think certain results make the issue indisputable, you might think they're rubbish. There doesn't seem to be a way to resolve that situation but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be nice to each other. By the way, do you know why the ability to edit posts for 20 minutes after they are first submitted has disappeared? It's not just me, others have the same issue.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
JVL:
I think that’s a matter of opinion as there seems to be a lot of people who would disagree with you on that!
The only people who disagree with that clearly do not understand how science works. Sir Isaac Newton laid it all out in Principia. It is a fact that the way to refute any given design inference is to slice off the designer requirement with Occam's razor. And to do that you just have to demonstrate tat nature can do it with any intelligent agency involvement. That is how it works with forensics. That is also how it works with archaeology. So I will stick to reality. You can have your disagreements because they are meaningless.
I think some scientists believe they have tested it.
Then they should publish it in peer-review. Until then it is meaningless. There is a peer-reviewed paper titled "Waiting for TWO Mutations" which totally refutes Dawkins' idea of cumulative selection. For example, it all but proves that trichromatic vision is out of the reach of unguided processes.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
JVL, opinions are of no account. Were there an actual demonstration, there would be Nobel prizes. There are not, that speaks. KFkairosfocus
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Et, 41: The way to refute it is to demonstrate that unguided processes are up to the task. To date no one has been able to do that. I think that's a matter of opinion as there seems to be a lot of people who would disagree with you on that! First there needs to be a way to test the claims of unguided processes. No one knows how to do that. So that would be a problem. And opinions don’t matter. What can be tested does. Yup. I think some scientists believe they have tested it. I see you disagree which is fine.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
JVL:
It depends on whether or not the design inference is correct doesn’t it?
The way to refute it is to demonstrate that unguided processes are up to the task. To date no one has been able to do that.
If it’s a mix then some work needs to be done to distinguish between what is and what is not designed.
First there needs to be a way to test the claims of unguided processes. No one knows how to do that. So that would be a problem. And opinions don't matter. What can be tested does.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
ET, 39: What is the evidence for unguided processes with respect to biology? Hopefully it’s something other than genetic diseases and deformities. It depends on whether or not the design inference is correct doesn't it? If there is no design then it's all down to unguided processes. If it's all design then there is zero evidence for unguided processes. If it's a mix then some work needs to be done to distinguish between what is and what is not designed. Any one person's opinion doesn't really matter does it? We're still looking at the real data aren't we?JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
JVL:
I disagree with him about the evidence for unguided evolution processes and the ‘obvious’-ness of things being designed.
What is the evidence for unguided processes with respect to biology? Hopefully it's something other than genetic diseases and deformities.ET
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Jawa, 35: What specifically you disagree with in Martin_r comments about the Unbelievable Dr Cronin vs Dr Tour debate? I disagree with him about the evidence for unguided evolution processes and the 'obvious'-ness of things being designed. 36: Do you like science? Specifically biology? Yes. Do you like GPuccio’s scientific contributions to this forum? I haven't read any recently so I'll not offer an opinion. Do you agree with gpuccio’s latest OPs and commentaries about protein functional information jumps? I haven't read them so I have no opinion. Jawa, 37: My comment @30 was related to @25 and @12 which are not related to you. You chose to get involved. I will ignore such comments from now on.JVL
March 2, 2020
March
03
Mar
2
02
2020
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply