But it’s not a model at all. If your point is that the patterns of gene distribution can’t be explained by any model we have shown, it doesn’t follow that your favorite notion is correct or even to be preferred. To do that you would need to show, at a minimum, that the pattern is to be expected as a consequence of your notion. This you can’t do because your notion has no consequences, at least none that you are willing to acknowledge.
And of course our model, common descent with branching, i.e. a tree, does explain the pattern quite well. As has been pointed out, your “waiting time” objection is both irrelevant, because the cause of fixation is not relevant to the pattern, and wrong, because it concerns particular events, not just whatever we happen to see.
I have excluded gene duplication and divergence as a viable mechanism that explains the Howe pattern based on long fixation times given reasonable vertebrate populations.
Do they find new function when the vary or do they move to non function? How many functional mutations can get fixed in a population in a reasonable time?
If you look at the Howe diagram and your claim is they all share a common ancestor then you are observing fixed changes to the 4 populations. John’s claim is those changes were caused by gene loss and gene gain.
Now if your model moves to separate origin events then indeed fixation is no longer an issue.
We’ve reached the final phase of Bill’s usual flailing:
Wait until people forget last time
Make the same claim he can’t support
Complain when asked to support it
Lie about what was said
Complain when he gets called out for lying
Learn what Rum? Your constantly exaggerated claims? This theory is currently limited to existing populations. Why do you need to make it more than what it is?
Need to break for the day.
