Rumraket
July 23, 2023, 8:46pm
88
You quote extensively from things you don’t understand. It’s no use arguing with you because you generally refuse to answer direct questions, ignore any calls for you to show you really understand the subject matter, and basically just repeat short sentences purporting to summarize all counter-arguments as “mere speculations” or similar.
But let’s try again:
You must be able to explain the methods of the paper to support this claim, otherwise you do not understand what the paper is showing. So I would like for you to explain why the authors of the paper use the collection of loci found stated in the results/discussion (also found in Table S2):
Roughly equal amounts of coding (14742 bp) and non-coding (17185 bp) genomic regions were sampled from X chromosome (4870 bp), Y chromosome (2630 bp) and autosomes (27427 bp) (Table 4 ) using newly developed PCR primers derived from a bioinformatics approach specific to primates in addition to primers from previous large-scale phylogenetic analyses (Materials and Methods , Tables S2 , S3 , S4 ).
Explain, in your own words, why they pick this particular collection of data to use in the inference of the phylogenetic tree. What is the reason for using this distribution of both coding and non-coding DNA from multiple different chromosomes?
You claim to have studied evolution a lot, so you should be able to explain what this achieves and why doing it is relevant in phylogenetic inference.
1 Like