DNA barcoding: According to their kinds


(Stephen Matheson) #42

There is no problem, none at all, with evolutionary theory and barcodes. There is a big, BIG problem with your understanding of evolutionary theory, perhaps also barcodes and DNA and mutation and mitochondria and almost all of what you write about on this forum.


(Martin R) #43

Bill, i can imagine you don’t see a problem… i can imagine…

The papers on the subject make that clear.

Really Bill?

So why is the author of the paper asking?

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


(Martin R) #44

hello, who are you?

if there is no problem,

why is the author of the paper asking?

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”

Do you know something what he does not?


(Martin R) #45

You mean the DNA barcoding?


(Martin R) #47

what in particular did i misunderstood? You keep attacking me that i misinterpret something or that i misunderstand something… instead of explaining this simple question:

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


(Martin R) #48

jason bourne… what are you talking about?

I put a simple question to forum’s experts, and nobody can’t explain it… so far…

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


(Martin R) #49

yes, i think that the fact that species have a unique ‘DNA barcode’ is a VERY BIG PROBLEM for the theory of evolution …

Even the author of the DNA barcode paper is asking:

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


(Martin R) #50

will someone answer my question ?

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


#51

Friend, you may find that not many folks here are interested in trying to convince you that you are wrong about DNA barcodes being imcompatible with evolution. You are brashly dismissive of almost every claim that contradicts your own view. This makes civil discourse difficult.


(Martin R) #52

Jason,

i put a simple question, and nobody wants to answer it, so here is it once again:

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”


(Martin R) #53

Could you be more specific what do you for living? Try to explain to me using simple words…you know my English is bad.


(Haywood Clark) #54

You forgot to mention all of the claims you’ve made. And I asked you a simple question that would reveal your misunderstanding:

What’s the percent IDENTITY between you and a dog for this barcode?

What is your native language?


(Steve Schaffner) #55

Yes, I know that you think this is a big problem for the theory of evolution. I know that because you keep saying it is a big problem. What I do not know is why you think it is a big problem, because you never say. That is why I asked you what you are talking about. You have not answered the question. Why do you think this is a problem?

The authors of this paper seem to have a pretty weak grasp of population genetics and molecular evolution. Under almost all evolutionary scenarios, synonymous variants should cluster within species. That’s because members of a species are usually more closely related to other members of the species than they are to members of other species. Maybe someone can tell me what I’m missing – why is this remotely interesting?

And in your own words, please tell me why you think this is a problem for evolutionary theory.


(Haywood Clark) #56

The notion of uniqueness in this context.


(Steve Schaffner) #57

Mutation and genetic drift.


(Martin R) #58

So why the authors of the paper asking such questions if the answer is so obvious?


(Martin R) #59

you said that before… Could you be more specific?


#60

Yes that is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Software QA.

@martin_r I have discovered when someone is misusing a paper that a quick read of the conclusion will often clear things up. This is the final paragraph.

Care to explain why you think the authors of the paper were actually questioning evolution?

And following the question, which is probably rhetorical, is this.

Again sounds like evolution to me, but the experts here can chime in if they wish.


(Steve Schaffner) #61

Because, as I already suggested, the authors have a poor grasp of population genetics and molecular evolution. For some of the many problems with this paper, see this thread.


(Martin R) #62

why do you answer a question with a question?

i put a simple question to forum’s experts:

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”

for example, Steve Schaffner replied “Mutation and genetic drift.”

so why do you answer a question with a question?