Joined: Mar. 2006
|Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2006,19:10)|
|A gene that has reached its maximum level of divergence between different given taxa is useless for the phylogenetic inference regarding these taxa. |
Lots of genes do not qualify for large scale phylogenetic studies, some of them do not even exist in all taxa and others have reached their maximum level of divergence (75% or less).
My message is clear enough to most experts in the field. But for the benefit of non-experts, I will explain it in more detail. First, I mean protein sequence homology not DNA. The border-line identity between two proteins is 15-20%, beyond which the two may not be eaisly recognized as homologous.
Second, The beauty of the fact that I am presenting is that it both supports and falsifies Darwinism, which makes it impossible for Darwinists to escape the falsification. It supports Dariwinism because there exist genes like cytochrome C. Human cyto C is identical to monkeys, less so to birds, still less to frogs, still less to fish, still less to yeast, and least similar to bacteria. Cyto C is thought to have a slow mutation rate and is obviously not showing signs of having reached maximum divergence. On the other hand, there are many genes that mutate faster. If A splited from B 100 myr ago, from C, 200 myr ago, from D 300 myr, from E, 400 myr,from F, 500 myr ago, and from G, 700 myr ago, there are many genes that show this pattern: identity between AB 90%, between AC, 70%, between AD 50%, between AE, 30%, between AF, 15-20%, between AG, no recognizable relationship. This pattern supports Darwinism and nearly all proteins show that type of pattern. However, if Darwinism is true, another pattern must exist for some genes X. Gene X would show identity between AB 90%, between AC 60%, between AD 30%, between AE 20%, between AF 20%, between AG, 20%. In this case, 20% is the lowest possible identity for gene X to retain similar function. But no genes like gene X has been found.
Darwinists can refute my logic by doing two things, 1, find a gene like X, 2, claim that Darwinism does not predict the pattern of gene X. No expert evolution biologists that I have contacted have been able to do those two things.
I hope this is now clear to everyone. If there are still some who do not get it, they should consult with an expert.