Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

Replicate lineages of the bacteriophage phiX 174 adapted to growth at high temperature on either of two hosts exhibited high rates of identical, independent substitutions. Typically, a dozen or more substitutions accumulated in the 5.4-kilobase genome during propagation. Across the entire data set of nine lineages, 119 independent substitutions occurred at 68 nucleotide sites. Over half of these substitutions, accounting for one third of the sites, were identical with substitutions in other lineages. Some convergent substitutions were specific to the host used for phage propagation, but others occurred across both hosts. Continued adaptation of an evolved phage at high temperature, but on the other host, led to additional changes that included reversions of previous substitutions. Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data. Replicate lineages subjected to similar environmental challenges showed similar rates of substitution and similar rates of fitness improvement across corresponding times of adaptation. Substitution rates and fitness improvements were higher during the initial period of adaptation than during a later period, except when the host was changed.

PMID: 9409816 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comments
JAD
Real scientists not only theorize: they TEST their hypotheses and when they are found to be without foundation they reject them instantly and never revive them.
Maybe I've missed it but have Semi-Meiosis and Prescribed Evolution ever been tested? IIRC, semi-meiosis has been discussed at UD by DaveScot but he didn't provide links to any tests. Actually, he concluded that Jesus may have had a 1n genome.sparc
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill, Every one of the responses from me that were deleted on Scordova's thread are now on display on my weblog, including your recommendation that I be banished from the discussion, something you had already seen to on your own weblog, just as your fellow Darwinians, P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry and, indirectly, Richard Dawkins, did on theirs. There is no way to determine who the blog czars are at ARN and EvC who did the same thing. "A doctrine that is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with uncalculable harm to human progress." Albert Einstein I agree with you that everything that transpires should remain as living testimony to the character of the participants. I have seen to it on my weblog by copying there all my comments many of which Scordova deleted without explanation. I doubt very much if he deleted any of yours. The reason I do not ignore Darwinians like yourself is because you Darwinian have always ignored your many critics, some of the greatest biologists of the last 150 years, all of whom rejected the Darwinian fairy tale in its entirety. I repeat my conviction that there is not a word in the Origin of Species that ever had anything to do with either true speciation or the appearance of any other taxanomic category. Nor is there anything of significance in the voluminous writings of Gould, Mayr, Provine, Fisher, Wright, Haldane etc, etc. either. They were all armchair theoreticians who collectively and singly contributed nothing of real significance to the solution of the great mystery of phylogeny. Real scientists not only theorize: they TEST their hypotheses and when they are found to be without foundation they reject them instantly and never revive them. This the Darwinians have steadfastly failed to do. They still refuse to test Darwin's finches for one reason only. They are terrified at the prospect that they are a single species which is virtually certain to be the result anyway as we have learned from the field observations by the Grants. Darwinians, of which you are a typical example, still insist on stubbornly pursuing a phantom which never existed, a phylogeny which was driven by chance even as everything we have discovered and continue to discover from both the experimental laboratory and the fossil record pleads for a planned and guided evolutionary sequence which, in my opinion, has reached its terminal phase. In short, Darwinians ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. They are, nearly without exception, Deists or Humanists or Unitarians, which as far as I am concerned are forms of atheism. I am not sure where the Quakers fit in this picture but I am of the opinion that they rarely mention God. At the head of Church Steet here in Burlington stands the Unitarian Church erected in 1809. I have been in that "church" and there is not a single religious symbol to be found there or in its "hymnal." I am in agreement with Robert Broom that there was a Plan, a word he had the temerity to capitalize, much to the horror of the Darwinian zealots who pretended he had never existed. I further believe the Plan has been realized with the present biota which represents the final products of a guided orthogenesis the terminal product of which was ourselves along with those of our fellow creatures which have not yet become extinct, never to be replaced. In short - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." I do not expect others to agree with my assessment, but I do expect that I will not be expelled here for presenting it as I have from so many other forums with which the internet is so inordinately blessed. It is out of my hands in any event because - Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others. Each of us is convinced that he is one of the lucky ones. I do not believe that is possible.JohnADavison
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
How can natural selection have been involved in any way with the features of a structure which had not yet appeared? I beg of you, please. Don't say this kind of thing. People who can't make a coherent argument for ID should just take a backseat and let the real advocates like Michael Behe do their thing. (Although I don't fully agree with his brand of ID, of all major proponents, his view is closest to mine, and he usually presents it in a decent manner.) Your "argument" isn't even a strawman. It's a pudding man. Please learn about what you're criticizing.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Another good example of that would be, if you believe the reports, acupuncture. Allen_MacNeill: The ability to admit error and change a viewpoint is the essential character of learning. Those who can admit no wrong imply they know everything, which makes them utter fools. You have proven to be of the former variety, and for that I respect you, regardless of your views on any issue.tragic mishap
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Reminds me of quantization error in communications. Quantization error is often and usefully modeled as a "noise" source. But this model is only valid for an ergodic ensemble of signals. Quantization error, the error between a signal and its quantized value, is deterministic. If you compare a particular signal to a quantized representation, its quantization error is deterministic, and for a periodic input harmonically related to the sampling period, the error and is periodic and very predictable. The noise model of quantization is useful, but it does not reflect reality. Point being, sometimes a model can be useful, but it doesn't make it true. In this case, the fact that they did not get the result they expected for a small sample seems to suggest that the stochastic attributes they are ascribing the phenomenon, while potentially useful for explaining at a macroscopic level certain observations, is not a reflection of reality. This is a point that many evolanders don't seem to understand: Models, even useful models, can be wrong. Another example is Tycho Brahe's 16th century geocentric model of the solar system. This model was useful, and it was used to create navigational charts by others so that captains could sail the world's seas. But the fact that the model was useful had no bearing on it as a reflection of reality.William Wallace
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
In #17 AmerikaninKananaskis wrote:
"Come on, if we’re going to make any inroads into science, we need a less juvenile approach to criticizing Darwinism than this."
Unfortunately, there are some people who are incapable of making reasoned responses to arguments. Based on the evidence in this thread and many others like it in the past, this appears in most cases to be due to an obsession with calling people names, using purely ad hominem arguments, and resorting to megalomaniacal rants rather than logical arguments supported by evidence. As is apparent from their own words, such individuals are "in love" with fighting for its own sake, and forget that General Patton's entire quote was "Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so". This was also Mussolini's feeling about war; that only in war did people rise to their full human potential. Is this the kind of attitude that makes for good science, or for that matter, for good people in a free and just society? As for how to deal with people who are apparently constitutionally incapable of carrying on a reasoned intellectual argument, the best thing to do under such circumstances is to do what you would do with schoolyard bullies: completely ignore them. Their comments should remain, however, as a public admonition to others on how not to make a persuasive intellectual argument.Allen_MacNeill
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
I hope I see the ultimate rejection of neo-Darwinism in my life time. Stuff like this sorta thing is reassuring it’ll come sooner or later.
Domoman, I'm surprised that you find this study reassuring. As others have pointed out, it in no way invalidates phylogenetic reconstructions in general -- it just shows the limitations of a certain methodology in certain circumstances. Genomics is lending tremendous support to modern evolutionary theory. For a nice overview, see Sean Carroll's latest book, titled The Making of the Fittest.mauka
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that ID advocates were above this stuff. What, are we arguing for special creation now instead of pre-loading? I thought we accepted common descent but just disregarded methodological naturalism. (In fact, I believe there used to be a section on this website that said something exactly along those lines.) There are only four nucleotides to choose from in DNA so of course there's going to be a lot of convergence. And of course it's going to mess up a phylogeny. Look up "long-branch attraction". This is basic stuff that anyone could sit down and figure out for themselves from first principles. Come on, if we're going to make any inroads into science, we need a less juvenile approach to criticizing Darwinism than this.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Darwinism died in 1871, 12 years after the publication of Darwin's opus minimus, when St. George Mivart challenged the core of Darwin's fantasy by asking the following question which I will paraphrase to make it understood by even the most dense of those who still support the most absurd proposal ever to reach the printed page. "How can natural selection have been involved in any way with the features of a structure which had not yet appeared? Mivart dedicated the whole of Chapter II to this perfect devastation of Darwin's entire thesis - St. George Mivart, The Incompetency of "Natural Selection" to Account for the Incipient Stages of Useful Structures, "The Genesis of Species," pages 35-75. Darwinism has died many times since Mivart, always to be resurrected each time by homozygous, congenitally atheist mystics who are not only stone deaf, like most pure white cats, to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres," but also blind as the proverbial bat to the world which has always surrounded them. You can't kill Darwinism any more than you can kill any other form of congenital bigotry. Darwinists are the perennial losers in the history of evolutionary thought. They are the handiwork of the second God I have postulated must once have existed, the malevolent one, who produced pathetic creatures like Paul Zachary Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They really can't help it. They were "born that way." There is absolutely nothing that can be done either for them or with them except to do what I have been doing for some time, which is to laugh at them, just as Adam Sedgwick laughed when he read the the book his student, Charles Darwin had produced in 1859. "EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein, my emphasis. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so!JohnADavison
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Eintown,
"I hope I see the ultimate rejection of neo-Darwinism in my life time. Stuff like this sorta thing is reassuring it’ll come sooner or later." You do realize this paper is over a decade old.
Neo-Darwinism will probably fall sooner or later regardless of this paper's age. The paper may lose its importance, but neo-Darwinism seems to be dying either way. Of course though, believe what you will. I just hope I'm right in the end. ;)Domoman
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me
and done 12 years from us as Bob O'H pointed out somewhere else. Here's the reference: Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ: Exceptional convergent evolution in a virus. Genetics. 1997 Dec;147(4):1497-507. Bob further points to some incongruity of Dr. Dembski introduction
but it was a small population
and what the paper actually says:
Three properties of the design may have led to the high rate of convergence, all of which are atypical of what is thought to apply to most organisms: [...] 2. Strong, mass selection was operating on very large populations.
sparc
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
This paper showed nicely that common selection can lead to extensive identity in DNA sequences. Thus, sequence comparison cannot always be used for inferring time of separation. This is exactly the point made by my MGD hypothesis. When we see a human and chimp identity of ~98%, we must first ask how much of that is due to common selection. The MGD says that there is a lot. The data are completely consistent with a pongid clade with human as the outgroup. Common selection for evolution of high intelligence could lead to more identity between human and chimp than between human and orangutan. MGD hypothesis here: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1751/version/2/html A more recent paper on this topic here Genetics, Vol. 181, 225-234, January 2009, Copyright © 2009 doi:10.1534/genetics.107.085225 Parallel Genetic Evolution Within and Between Bacteriophage Species of Varying Degrees of Divergence Jonathan P. Bollback*,1 and John P. Huelsenbeck * Department of Biology, Evolutionary Biology, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 1 Corresponding author: Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, King's Bldgs., W. Mains Rd., Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, United Kingdom. E-mail: j.p.bollback@ed.ac.uk Parallel evolution is the acquisition of identical adaptive traits in independently evolving populations. Understanding whether the genetic changes underlying adaptation to a common selective environment are parallel within and between species is interesting because it sheds light on the degree of evolutionary constraints. If parallel evolution is perfect, then the implication is that forces such as functional constraints, epistasis, and pleiotropy play an important role in shaping the outcomes of adaptive evolution. In addition, population genetic theory predicts that the probability of parallel evolution will decline with an increase in the number of adaptive solutions—if a single adaptive solution exists, then parallel evolution will be observed among highly divergent species. For this reason, it is predicted that close relatives—which likely overlap more in the details of their adaptive solutions—will show more parallel evolution. By adapting three related bacteriophage species to a novel environment we find (1) a high rate of parallel genetic evolution at orthologous nucleotide and amino acid residues within species, (2) parallel beneficial mutations do not occur in a common order in which they fix or appear in an evolving population, (3) low rates of parallel evolution and convergent evolution between species, and (4) the probability of parallel and convergent evolution between species is strongly effected by divergence.shuangtheman
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Paper: One should read page 1505 of the paper, rather than simply the abstract. The authors conclude that convergence does not pose a problem for tree construction. Reconstruction methods accommodate for this. (And I would guess 12 yrs later the methods are even better). They used star convergence which is sensitive to convergence- you can use other methods. The phage has a abnormally high rate of convergence because of the experimental setup. In another study when a different phage was used (T7); with the result that parallel substitutions were 28x more rare. Consequently the phylogentic trees were accurately predicted. And so the paper continues past the abstract. So I would say that the phylogentic results were an artifact of the method. Furthermore these results are not common and do not occur with other tree methods and phages.eintown
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I hope I see the ultimate rejection of neo-Darwinism in my life time. Stuff like this sorta thing is reassuring it’ll come sooner or later. You do realize this paper is over a decade old.eintown
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Random mutation, Natural Selection, probability, population genetics, Mendelian (sexual) genetics, none of these ever had anything to do with creative evolution. Every aspect of organic evolution, like every other aspect of the universe, was planned in advance, took place on a predetermined schedule and is, as nearly as we can determine, now finished with only extinction remaining. I know this will prove to be an unacceptable position here as elsewhere but it my conclusion based on all the available evidence. "La commedia e finita." Pagliacci or soon will be! There now, In feel somewhat better. "Here I stand. I can do no otherwise." Martin LutherJohnADavison
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Dr Dembski, The authors showed that tools developed to look for bifurcating trees are bad at detecting star trees. On the whole, it seems to me that this research is cautionary about using models and tools outside of their intended areas of applicability. While you allow for three caveats (intense pressure, small population, small genome), the authors provide their own three. They agree with you on pressure. They disagree with you on population size, calling it "very large". On the genome, they focus on the identical starting point, rather than the size. And yet, and yet something happened in those test tubes. The virus did adapt to changes in its environment, and it did do so by changes to the genome easily explicable by copying errors of the bacterial host machinery. The result was improved fitness by three orders of magnitude. RM+NS, ne? So I don't think 'modern evolutionary theory' got it completely wrong. :) Perhaps I shouldn't ask on a blog with this name, but do you have serious disagreements with the assumption of common descent in metazoa? I think we all agree tha the bottom of the tree of life is a web, a froth, a foam. Happy Easter to you!Nakashima
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Where are the defenders of Darwinism when we need them?idnet.com.au
April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
This just goes to show that evolutionary theory is not a good theory- not because it does not address the evidence but because it does not address "the main question" which it claims to explain about the evidence, which is usually "what caused or gave rise to X?" Chance (if it even exists) is not a good mechanism which apparently is what this study showed. Any theory that relies on randomness is by definition a theory which does not work. Randomness does not predict anyhting- or explain anything- it marks a hole within a theory- it is an excuse for data that the theory cannot reconcile. But in the case of this study we know the data is not junk - so therefore it must be the theory that is flawed.Frost122585
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Where is the logic police when you need them. Any theory which has at it's heart the mechanism of random luck to explain the origin of specific structures is not a good theory at all.Frost122585
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
I hope I see the ultimate rejection of neo-Darwinism in my life time. :) Stuff like this sorta thing is reassuring it'll come sooner or later.Domoman
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me. Don't forget the "deep time" excuse (i.e. the experiment's duration is short relative to evolutionary time)! Convergence, of course,is a common feature of design. It's also precisely the opposite of "divergence", which is supposed to be a hallmark of evolution. I note that one of the paper's authors, David Hillis, was deeply involved in the recent textbook fiasco in Texas, taking the side of the evolutionists. Sometimes it seems these evolutionists ignore the import of their own papers. And aren't us theists the ones who are supposed to be guilty of "compartmentalization"?WeaselSpotting
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Phylogenetic trees ultimately fail because the real pattern of life is a mosaic or a web, not a tree. So, the phylogenetic trees always end up containing inconclusive and contradictory data. The DNA that leads to one tree could just as easily be used to construct an entirely different tree. Therefore, in order to make the DNA fit the original assumption that a tree even exists in the first place a procrustean bed is fashioned for the data using the twin excuses of horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution to cover up the contradictions. A third excuse, mutational hot spots can also be used to defend the tree. However, the mutational hot spot explanation must be handled with care because it is a double edge sword that effectively threatens the very assumptions upon which the tree was built in the first place.Jehu
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
It would be interesting to do a probabilistic analysis of this study.
For that matter, it would be interesting to do a probabilistic analsis of ALL Darwinism. Maybe it's just to make them look humble {HA!} but scientists try to gloss their dogma in the language of probability. But that is the greatest weakness of Darwinism. If (and this is being generous!) we allow a probability of 0.9 for humans and chimps being 'related', how do we relate that to the probability of the Earth being, say, 14 billion years old or whatever this month's figure is? Presumably the Order of Darwin will express THAT as a probability of (let's be generous again) of 0.85. Does that not mean that the overall probability of Darwinism has moved down to (0.9 X 0.85) 0.765? And as we add in all the other assumptions (sorry, 'probabilities') do we not move further and further away from certainty? And they have the gall to call this FACT? It is MOST reassuring that this study of phylogenetics undermining Darwinism comes so soon after the Texas Government has reopened the way for teachers to show pupils the unencumbered facts of Man's true place in the order of creation. As so often before, we look to America to take the lead in unmiring us from value-free degeneracy.P. Mahoney
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
It would be interesting to do a probabilistic analysis of this study. How much probabilistic resources did the phages have during the course of the experiment? Did they have enough to go through every possible substitution? If yes, then this type of study could be done with any conceivable selective pressure and the limits of evolutionary change available to the phages could be observed. If no, then the hypothesis could be made that the solutions found are not the only ones, since the phages found these particular solutions without enough probabilistic resources to get through the whole range. Since that would imply multiple solutions, it would be logical to further hypothesize that the solutions involve loss of information via different substitutions that degrade the integrity of whatever molecular structures are involved. That's because it's much easier to break something than build it, and there would be multiple ways to break whatever needed breaking, leading to a high probability for finding a solution and enabling the phages to find it without exhausting all possible substitutions.tragic mishap
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
How well, I wonder, would the phylogenetic tree of mixed drinks generated using the PHYLIP package conform to the known history of the various drinks?anonym
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply