Re: 42 Questioons

On 6 Jul, 16:23, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:34 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

It is impossible to derive a "period or date" spanning 2.5 billion
year based on the genetic drift of 42 proteins. Or you could do the
math! And show me.

Somebody already has.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1586193&blobtyp...


Guess you didnt read the whole article.

"Figure 1
The logic and problems of paralogue rooting. In theory (A),
two genes that arose from a single parent by duplication
immediately prior to the common ancestor of the group
under study should yield two identical trees joined together
by a line (shown extra thick) between the roots (stars) of
each tree. Letters are taxa. In practice (B), stochasticity and
systematic biases in evolutionary modes and rates yield trees
with partially incorrect topology and often-misplaced roots
[1]. Misplaced branches (red) are shown as extra long, but in
practice misplaced taxa often do not reveal themselves so
neatly. In practice, root positions in paralogue subtrees may
both be right (very rare: I recall no examples), both wrong
but the same (implying strong systematic biases), both wrong
but different (often reflecting stochasticity and poor resolution),
or one right and one wrong. When such conflicts
occur among different paralogue pairs (or triples, etc.), as is
almost invariable, other means are required to decide
between them".


but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
parts

So what? I could argue that it is easier to use "biobricks" in
constructing functional machines. Henry ford thought so.
Could you show me the sequences anyway. Thanks.

In the end, all life is made up of 4 parts.-

It is more accurate and complex of an analysis than that, and it falls
out of what we have already learned about biological evolution.  It
isn't just how different the sequences are, but how they are related
and the nesting and branching of the sequences.
 Look at the
phylogenetic trees in the paper that I put up.  How do you think that
they assemble such a phylogeny if they were just looking at
differences?  You could understand it if you wanted to, but you aren't
interested in understanding anything.

The trees on which page?

Is this a phylogenetic tree of the actual flagellum proteins? Or the
actual bacteria?
Do you have both trees? And do they match?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Paper: Universal Artifacts Affect the Branching of Phylogenetic Trees, Not Universal Scaling Laws
    ... Universal Artifacts Affect the Branching of Phylogenetic Trees, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Universal grammar
    ... mathematics, leading to a "formal system", a language consisting of merely ... trees similar to the ASTs used in computer compiler ... consisting of sequences of symbols before you need to. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Universal grammar
    ... mathematics, leading to a "formal system", a language consisting of merely ... trees similar to the ASTs used in computer compiler ... consisting of sequences of symbols before you need to. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: 10 NOTORIOUS DARWINIST FABRICATIONS
    ... John Harshman wrote: ... >>haplotype data can be placed into, as I said, an exponential ... >>number of trees. ... > sapiens sequences are not reciprocally monophyletic, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A graph theory question
    ... They have the same degree sequences. ... I think you'll find these trees both have 7 vertices, ... and zero n-cycles for n> 2, ... Gerry Myerson ...
    (sci.math)