It’s not true, though, so that’s a problem. Anyone who’s ever done any phylogenetics knows that there are many reasons why different genes give you different trees, as can different analyses of the same data. Dawkins appears to know this too, which is why the actual quote doesn’t say “identical trees”. The more important question is what lesson Buggs draws from all this. Can you say?
“Significantly”, in statistics, has a meaning different from what you might suppose. What does Buggs mean by it?
I suggested no such thing. I was asking if his claim about differing evolutionary trees derived from different genes was correct.
Of course, they might learn something new, since his examples are from species such as ash trees, and they might not know the specifics of the genetics of those trees in particular as well as he does – he being one of the experts on genomics of trees in the UK. But that’s immaterial to the main point he is making.
Granted, but the question arises: How far from “identical” is far enough that the general claim (different genes will produce approximately the same tree) runs into trouble? Again, I’m not pronouncing an answer, but I think it’s a legitimate question.
I took it that he is saying that frequently-uttered claims (whether by scientists or their popularizers) that no matter what gene is studied, a standard tree is confirmed, is not in accord with empirical data, which indicates significantly different trees. But I’d rather you heard his statements than my non-biologist’s translation. You wouldn’t have to listen to the whole video to look at both his data and his reasoning. The first five or so minutes are introductory and can be skipped, and he finishes talking about trees by about 39:00. So that’s only about half an hour, and even then, you could fast-forward through it if you want to get to the diagrams and the discussion of them in a hurry.
Why don’t you look at the diagrams he presents which purport to show significantly different trees? Then you’ll know exactly what he thinks is “significantly different” – which is preferable to us having a useless, word-chopping debate about what “significantly” means. It would take you all of five minutes to fast-forward to the diagrams where he uses actual genes from the plants he selects and shows the varying phylogenetic trees that they yield. Then you could decide whether the differences he finds are “significant” or not.
I posted this so that people would look at what Buggs says, not to induce anyone to argue with me. If you aren’t interested in looking at the data he presents and his interpretation of it, then just say so and I won’t reply to you again. But I would think someone interested in systematics would be at least a little bit interested in checking out some of the details he is talking about.
I suppose that eventually I will. But the more important question is what the point is here. Suppose that those trees are “significantly different”. So what? What do you think the point is? What does Buggs think the point is?
The point is that since the reigning theory (as Buggs understands it) predicts that the trees generated from different genes will be very similar, then significant dissimilarity clashes with prediction and puts the theory in question.
It should go without saying, but just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not implying that if the theory collapses, Buggs’s arguments about the reliability of the New Testament as history are therefore valid. In fact, I have little interest in that part of his talk. I do, however, think that his remarks in the last few minutes, about the way some biology teachers treat religion and/or religious students, accord with many other reports, and deserve attention.
I’m about 2/3 through this excruciatingly slow and in many other ways annoying presentation, and so far he makes no point, though he does say he’ll come back to it later. Does he? And I ask once more, what is the point? You seem to imply that the point is that the theory of common descent is untrue. Is that it? Why won’t you say?
There are of course many reasons, under the standard theory of evolution, why different genes might give somewhat different trees. So far Buggs has discussed none of those reasons and has made no attempt to explain what’s going on in any of the trees he presents. You may like to investigate some of those reasons, and I believe someone has already linked to my Panda’s Thumb post on the subject. Have you looked? None of those reasons would suggest that we throw out the tree of life. But does Buggs think we should?
He appears to conclude that. I myself would not necessarily conclude that, since I don’t rule out nudged or guided evolution, under which we might expect a fair amount of matchup, but not perfect matchup, between trees for individual genes. He may not be interested in that position. And again, I’m not defending either his science or this theology. I’m just asking if the particular examples he gives show a greater-than-expected misfit between prediction and empirical results, or if he is misinterpreting his data, or if his data is wrong, etc. If he’s wrong about what the prediction would be, if he exaggerates the significance of discrepancies, etc., well then, just say you think so, and you’ve answered my question. I don’t intend to either agree or disagree with your evaluation of his argument; I merely want to register it, for future reflection.
The background of my question is this: For years in these debates, I’ve been hearing people on one side make charges that there are huge discrepancies between trees (though often the claimed discrepancies are between trees derived from morphology etc. and trees derived purely from genomes), and I’ve often heard people on the other side say, no there are no discrepancies, the trees all agree, but these are usually just loud claims on both sides, with nothing concrete to back them up, and therefore I don’t trust either side. What I thought was interesting was that here is guy who is not resting on generalities but presents examples from the plant kingdom (which is his special area of science) and says, look, there is a demonstrable contradiction between trees from different genes. He might be wrong, but at least he is pointing to particular data, drawing particular trees based on it, and exposing his argument to criticism. That’s a better way of arguing than just shouting “Do not!” and “Do too!” back and forth. So I gave people the link, so they can look at the argument.
I’m not trying to get people to agree with him, and I expect nobody here will, but I just wanted to indicate the existence of an argument which appears to be data-based rather than made up out of someone’s head for purely culture-war reasons. Lots of people here say ID folks pay no attention to data: well, here is one who is paying attention to data. He may interpret it wrongly, but he’s paying attention to data. That, if nothing else, should earn him some minimal respect.
I’m very surprised to hear you say that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say anything the slightest bit like that. My impression is that the knowledge that that’s false is pretty much universal among people with at least a passing interest in the subject. Again and again one hears how early molecular phylogenetic work wasn’t very accurate because it didn’t take enough data into account. The whole “guinea pigs aren’t rodents” tale, for example (though some of that was, I think, work on proteins rather than on genes themselves). How could phylogenetic work on subsets of genes be inferior to whole-genome analyses, if every gene gave the same tree?
“Not necessarily”? This seems an odd, though weaselly, claim, given your previously forthright confidence in common descent. Have you in fact changed your mind? And why, given guided evolution, would we expect an imperfect matchup?
No way to tell given what he presented. You will note that he proposed no test despite his own cited example of Penny et al. Were the various genes sampled even individually capable of resolving a tree? Again, no way to tell.
I’m questioning whether you have actually heard that.
Why do you have the constant impulse to pick a fight? There is nothing “weaselly” about my statement. I didn’t say anything that suggested rejection of common descent or even doubt. I was contrasting the position Buggs seems to be arguing for (no common descent) with notions of guided evolution (in which there can be common descent, but also possibly some discontinuities).
If you’re questioning my truthfulness, there is no point in our discussing anything. I’ve read what I’ve read and I’ve heard what I’ve heard. And I couldn’t care less whether you believe I read or heard those things or not.
Fine, you have answered my question. You are not accusing him of error or incompetence, but of incomplete exposition or incomplete argument. You’d like him to have said more. OK, fine.
You’d think, wouldn’t you? But don’t you dare go questioning his truthfulness when he can’t produce a single one. He’ll just pick up his toys and go home. Oh, well, that’s one way out of the humiliating predicament in which he has placed himself by, once again, trusting that his creationist heroes aren’t just lying through their teeth.
If “guided evolution” included sudden, drastic saltation-like changes in the space of a single generation, would we expect to find discrepancies of the sort that would cause us to question whether common descent, in the usual sense, occurred? Or would phylogenetic techniques still reliably produce trees?
Yes there was and yes you did. If that was the result of you just expressing yourself poorly, I withdraw the question.
Again you seem to be expressing yourself poorly. What do you mean by “discontinuities”?
I’m questioning your ability to understand what you read and hear. For example you accuse Dawkins of predicting that every gene would give exactly the same tree, but that isn’t what the Dawkins quote actually says.
Not exactly. I’m implicitly accusing him of choosing what he says and how he says it to hint at something false that he never quite says and never quite supports. I do suspect dishonesty.
Should be the latter unless the saltations are engineered specifically to produce discordance. All a saltation ought to do is make some branch longer than ordinary evolution would make it. And that wouldn’t change the shape of the tree.
It’s certainly hard to see this as anything other than dishonesty. It’s hard to believe Buggs is as dim as this, and the choice of Richard Dawkins as his foil is very telling: this is culture-war gibberish, not scientific discourse.
He is simply making an argument against Dawkins failed assertion that different gene mutation patterns mostly follow the same tree. Dawkins has been the lead public speaker and writer for evolution. Who other then Dawkins has sold more books on evolution to the public?
Given the inconsistency here what evidence do we have that common descent as a theory still has merit even if Richard is a pathological liar?
Not “mutation patterns” as such, and the assertion is not that they “mostly follow the same tree” but that trees supported by different genes tend to be mostly similar. And, of course, that isn’t a “failed assertion” – not even close.
Why would anyone care, if he had a scientific, rather than a culture-war, point to make? Dawkins could be mistaken about phylogenetics easily enough as it isn’t his field of work. What one would want to do would be to show that actual phylogeneticists were wrong, not that a guy who writes popular books and isn’t a phylogeneticist is wrong.
But, of course, you are among those Buggs seeks to fool, and it’s clear that he’s doing a fine job.
That’s a bit weird. Apparently this college has a series of lectures they simply call “inaugural lectures,” without reference to anything that’s being inaugurated. Maybe they are practitioners of the ancient Roman art of augury? Buggs seems like he’d be into that.