Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard ...

were mistaken for natural laws.” 566300Einwand: Sind denn die hier behaupteten Widersprüche in der Phylogenetiktatsächlich so verbeitet und tiefgehend wie hier impliziert? Der weitverbreitetenMissverständnisse und der Bedeutung der Thematik wegen gebe ich dazu wohl ambesten noch einmal die folgenden Punkte aus http://www.weloennig.de/Utricularia2011Buch.pdf wieder:"Nun hat sich immer wieder herausgestellt, dass bei zunehmenden molekularen Datenmengen dieSituation für evolutionäre Schlussfolgerungen nicht etwa einfacher, sondern sehr oft noch wesentlichschwieriger wurde. Diese Aussage trifft nach meinem bisherigen Wissensstand vor allem auf Fragender Makroevolution, aber auch auf Beispiele der Mikroevolution zu. 567566 http://www.weloennig.de/mendel13.htm: Siehe zu Blackwelder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Blackwelder und zuR. Pearl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Pearl567 Vgl. dazu einige sehr informative Beispiele, die der Geologe und Jurist C. Luskin (2009) hier vor allem zu makroevolutionärenFragen aufgeführt hat (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_4.html, siehe dort, wie imfolgenden Beitrag, die genauen Literaturangaben): "For example, pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome Cphylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolsterthe case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree,which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated:"the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction.Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies andlorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making thissurprising result even more disconcerting.” Siehe weiter http://www.discovery.org/a/10651: "…the tree of life is challenged evenamong higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains: "Syvanen recently compared2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have beenable to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. Theproblem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes.Conventionally, sea squirts—also known as tunicates—are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in thephylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but othersindicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have oneevolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.” Even among higher organisms, "[t]he problem was thatdifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” leading Syvanen to say, regarding the relationships of these highergroups, "We've just annihilated the tree of life.” This directly contradicts Hillis' claim that there is "overwhelming agreementcorrespondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence.” Other scientists agree with the conclusionsof the New Scientist article. Looking higher up the tree, a recent study published in Science tried to construct a phylogeny ofanimal relationships but concluded that "[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships amongmost [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” Likewise, Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observedthat these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: "Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seeneverywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of theprimary groupings themselves.” Likewise, National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has had harsh words for thefield of molecular systematics, which Hillis studies. In her article, "The Phylogenetic Tree Topples,” she explains that "manybiologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generatesnew species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern!” But shedissents from that view and attacks the dogmatism of evolutionary systematists, noting, "Especially dogmatic are those molecularmodelers of the 'tree of life' who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don't study ancestors." 8 Striking admissionsof troubles in reconstructing the "tree of life” also came from a paper in the journal PLOS Biology entitled, "Bushes in the Treeof Life.” The authors acknowledge that "a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality,” observing thatone study "omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds withconventional wisdom.” The paper suggests that "certain critical parts of the [tree of life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless ofthe quantity of conventional data available.” The paper even contends that "[t]he recurring discovery of persistentlyunresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics.”Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren't willing to consider changing is the assumption that neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry are correct. Extreme Genetic Convergent Similarity: Common Design or CommonDescent? If common descent is leading to so many bad predictions, why not consider the possibility that biological similarity isinstead the result of common design? After all, designers regularly re-use parts, programs, or components that work in differentdesigns (such as using wheels on both cars and airplanes, or keyboards on both computers and cell-phones). One data-point thatmight suggest common design rather than common descent is the gene "pax-6.” Pax-6 is one of those pesky instances whereextreme genetic similarity popped up in a place totally unexpected and unpredicted by evolutionary biology. In short, scientistshave discovered that organisms as diverse as jellyfish, arthropods, mollusks, and vertebrates all use pax-6 to control developmentof their very distinct types of eyes. Because their eye-types are so different, it previously hadn't been thought that these organismseven shared a common ancestor with an eye. Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explains the havoc wreaked within the standardevolutionary phylogeny when it was discovered that the same gene controlled eye-development in many organisms with verydifferent types of eyes: "It had been shown that by morphological-phylogenetic research that photoreceptor organs (eyes) haddeveloped at least 40 times independently during the evolution of animal diversity. A developmental geneticist, however, showedthat all animals with eyes have the same regulator gene, Pax 6, which organizes the construction of the eye. It was therefore atfirst concluded that all eyes were derived from a single ancestral eye with the Pax 6 gene. But then the geneticist also found Pax6 in species without eyes, and proposed that they must have descended from ancestors with eyes. However, this scenario turnedout to be quite improbable and the wide distribution of Pax 6 required a different explanation. It is now believed that Pax 6, evenbefore the origin of eyes, had an unknown function in eyeless organisms, and was subsequently recruited for its role as an eyeorganizer.""