linking back to brembs.net






My lab:
lab.png

This is probably the question one should be asking Republican politicians instead of the evolution question. Hardly anyone would deny how accurate today's DNA testing can verify or exclude the paternity of any potential father. The same technique, of course, is used to determine the genetic relationship between less related humans and even other species. There is nothing fundamentally different between a paternity test and constructing a phylolgenetic tree using the DNA from different species. A huge improvement of such a phylogenetic tree has just been published (press release) - which is what brought me to write this post. The cool thing about this work is the cross-validation of the genetic with fossil data. Sometimes, this cross-validation is not that easy. Sometimes, the molecular evidence suggests a different timeline than the fossil record. Which brings me to the next result that just came out. Today must have been the day for phylogenetic trees! The second paper dealt exactly with the potential difference between molecular and fossil phylogenies. It provided a new technique for reconciling molecular phylogenies with the fossil record.

The basic message here is: if you believe in paternity tests, you believe in evolution. You can't have one without the other.

In the more conspiracy-theory driven creationist, this convincing congruence between fossil records and molecular phylogeny might trigger a notion of "well, these scientists just had to confirm Darwin or they would have been ostracized by the scientific community!". Of course, science works the opposite way: you get to be famous if you have the data to challenge conventional thought (aka. the mainstream, aka. the establishment). Also just in: data that may challenge Einstein's theory of relativity (here, here). This should make it clear for anybody, that if someone one day discovered data with the potential to challenge evolutionary theory, they'd be instant celebrities. And yet, evolution is still going strong after 150 years of fierce testing and a battle of generations of scientists to make a career proving it wrong. Luckily, you can still survive in science without being famous - barely (until the budget cuts, that is). With job opportunities in basic science declining, there now is even more pressure on scientists to challenge conventional thought, discover exciting new phenomena and develop yet better theories.
Posted on Friday 23 September 2011 - 15:50:19 comment: 0
{TAGS}

Render time: 0.0711 sec, 0.0050 of that for queries.