embryological features, and life histories of the molting animals, it was initially surprising that the ribosomal RNA tree should group them together.”32 [Aguinaldo et al., for a Clade of Nematodes, “Evidence Arthropods and Other Moulting Animals,” 492.] [Stephen C. Meyer: Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2210-2213). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] As a major review article in Nature in 2000 observes, trees “Evolutionary constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”43 And the problem isn’t getting better over time. A 2012 paper admits that larger datasets are not solving this problem: between phylogenies derived from morphological “Incongruence versus molecular analyses and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”44 [43. Gura, Molecules . . . “Bones, or Both?” 230. A 2004 paper in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics puts it this way: tools have profoundly rearranged “Molecular our understanding of metazoan phylogeny.” (Halanych, New View of “The Animal Phylogeny,” 229.) 44. Dávalos et al., Phylogenetic “Understanding Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats,” 993.] [Stephen C. Meyer: Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2250-2255). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] As Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Bruno Maresca put it in the journal Biological Theory: assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or “This dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the assumption.’ [Schwartz and ‘molecular ”46 Maresca, Molecular Clocks Run at All?” 357.] [Stephen C. Meyer: “Do Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2258-2261). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] After completing a survey of many such difficulties, University of St. Andrews zoologist Pat Willmer and Oxford University zoologist Peter Holland, experts on invertebrate anatomy, draw this conclusion: “Taken
embryological features, and life histories of the molting animals, it was initially surprising that the ribosomal RNA tree should group them together.”32 [Aguinaldo et al., “Evidence for a Clade of Nematodes, Arthropods and Other Moulting Animals,” 492.] [Stephen C. Meyer: Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2210-2213). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] As a major review article in Nature in 2000 observes, “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”43 And the problem isn’t getting better over time. A 2012 paper admits that larger datasets are not solving this problem: “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”44 [43. Gura, “Bones, Molecules . . . or Both?” 230. A 2004 paper in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics puts it this way: “Molecular tools have profoundly rearranged our understanding of metazoan phylogeny.” (Halanych, “The New View of Animal Phylogeny,” 229.) 44. Dávalos et al., “Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats,” 993.] [Stephen C. Meyer: Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2250-2255). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] As Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Bruno Maresca put it in the journal Biological Theory: “This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the ‘molecular assumption.’ ”46 [Schwartz and Maresca, “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All?” 357.] [Stephen C. Meyer: Darwin's Doubt (Kindle Locations 2258-2261). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.] After completing a survey of many such difficulties, University of St. Andrews zoologist Pat Willmer and Oxford University zoologist Peter Holland, experts on invertebrate anatomy, draw this conclusion: “Taken
doubt.docx