In article <32195115.7240 at vims.edu>, Mark Siddall <mes at vims.edu> wrote:
>Ron Kagan wrote:
>> ... to reject the null hypothesis of the molecular
>> clock? Is p<0.05 still the standard, or should I use a stricter criteria
>> (p<0.01)?
>>Sorry?!!
>Since when is the molecular clock a reasonable null hypothesis?!!!
>>Molecular phylogenetics in the late 20th century... limited by the
>arbitrariness of Joe Felsenstein's imagination and Linus Pauling's
>presumptions???
>>[no offense Joe... ].
(1) Sure I take offense! But come to think of it you have put me in
awesomely good company there! So, thanks.
(2) The molecular clock is a good, useful, fruitful approximation.
It is more true the more closely related are the species. If you're
comparing archaebacteria to eubacteria to eukaryotes, it is wierd to
assume it. If you're doing phylogenies within a genus of dicky-birds,
it is a natural thing to test. Does anyone imagine that they would
have grossly-different rates of molecular evolution? It would be
strange if they did. Morphology is, of course, a different matter.
(3) The molecular clock has been denounced so loudly as nonexistent by
phylogenetic systematists (and non-parsimony methods frequently, and
wildly inaccurately, asserted to inherently assume it) that it would be
helpful to science to have it defended. It is not true. But it is
often pretty nearly true for closely related beasts. It is therefore
often worth testing.
Molecular phylogenetics in the early 21st century ... limited by
myths of the total invalidity of the clock?
--
Joe Felsenstein joe at genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.95.12.41)
Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Box 357360, Seattle, WA 98195-7360 USA
