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

303Zurück zum Vaterschaftstest:"In a DNA parentage test, the result (called the 'probability of parentage') is 0% when the allegedparent is not biologically related to the child and the probability of parentage typically greater than99.9% when the alleged parent is biologically related to the child.” 573Nun stelle sich der Leser einmal vor, die Verfechter der Methode des DNA-Vaterschaftstests(Abstammungsnachweis, paternity test, Überbegriff DNA parentage test) müssten statt der erwarteten99,9% Sicherheit für konkrete Fälle (oder zum großen Teil auch ganz allgemein) Folgendes eingestehen:"Conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome”, "themitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd family tree for the child (grouping his possiblefathers with cats and whales) regardless of the method of tree construction,” ”different proteinsgenerate different family tree[s], i. e. different fathers", "the robust identification of the child's fatherhas proven to be a difficult task." "[t]he relationship to most possible fathers remain uncertain","moredata is not fixing the discrepancies”, "the child is not monophyletic (i. e. has not only one but severaldifferent fathers), a striking conclusion that differed from virtually all previous wisdom,…whichnevertheless has strong statistical support", "this paper finds that molecular-based family treesconflicted sharply with previously established male parents”, "they find convergent similarity betweensome of the child's mtDNA and the mtDNA of distant species such as snakes and lizards”, "we have noevidence at all that the family tree is a reality,"….”one DNA sequence would yield one tree, whileanother sequence would yield a different tree”, "more fundamentally, recent research suggests that thefamily tree of the child isn't exactly tree-like either", "the problem was that different genes toldcontradictory stories to identify the father."Soweit die Dokumentation zur Unsicherheit phylogenetischer Darstellungen imGegensatz zum Vaterschaftstest aus der Utricularia-Arbeit (2012, pp. 125 und190-193). Zu weiteren Daten vgl. z . B. Casey Luskin (2012): Bothersome Batsand Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life” 574 (die beiden folgenden Zitate ausDávalos et al. 2012: "Incongruence between phylogenies derived frommorphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on differentsubsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expandedrapidly in both characters and species.” Oder: "…phylogenetic conflict iscommon, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.” 575 ).Es sei zwischendurch einmal betont, dass, soweit mir bekannt, alle oben aus derPrimärliteratur zitierten Autoren Evolutionsbiologen sind, die nicht das geringste Interesse daranhaben, die "Tatsache Evolution" in Frage zu stellen und weiterhin intensiv nachWiderspruchslösungen im Sinne der Darwinschen Deszendenztheorie suchen. 576 .Oder Jonathan M. (2013): An Enzyme's Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case ofConvergent Evolution 577 . Oder C. Luskin again (2012): Common Ancestry:Wikipedia vs. the Data 578 . Oder (2013): Clearcut: Publish the Claim, then Destroythe Data (2013) 579 .573 Ganz seltene Ausnahme (um die 30 Fälle unter zig Millionen): Chimären, die jedoch letztlich ebenfalls eindeutig genetisch verstanden werdenkönnen (vgl. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693 "In human biology, a chimera is an organism with at least two geneticallydistinct types of cells -- or, in other words, someone meant to be a twin. But while in the mother's womb, two fertilized eggs fuse, becoming onefetus that carries two distinct genetic codes -- two separate strands of DNA.”574 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/bothersome_bats067121.html575 Zitiert nach Jonathan M. (Der Autor gibt zu seinem Nachnamen nur die Initiale "M.” an, da er gerne seine Biologiestudium noch unbehellgtabschließen möchte. Das volle Zitat lautet: "Incongruence among phylogenies estimated from different sets of characters is pervasive (Rokas etal., 2003). Phylogenetic conflict has become a more acute problem with the advent of genome-scale data sets. These large data sets haveconfirmed that phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception (Waddell et al., 1999; Leebens-Mack etal., 2005; Jeffroy et al., 2006; Rodríguez-Ezpeleta et al., 2007).” Siehe http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573643/576 "Here, we develop and apply methods to minimize systematic biases, uncover the biological mechanisms underlying phylogenetic conflict, andoutline data requirements for future phylogenomic and morphological data collection.” – Dávalos et al. (2012) wiederhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573643/ (Zugriff 21. 4. 2013)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/an_enzymes_phyl068911.htmlhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/common_ancestry_1065001.html579 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/publish_the_cla068361.html