4 ms·

This computational model doesn't match the fossil record which suggests the flaw is in the model, not the evidence.

• greazy 3y ago
  They used the fossil record to fine tune the baysian phylogenetic model. So no this is not correct.
  • space_fountain 3y ago
    I think this might be wrong. The article ends with quotes from Jacob Berv. It says: > Jacob Berv, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan who was not involved in the study, said that it illustrated state-of-the-art methods for crunching huge amounts of genetic data to reconstruct evolutionary history. But he did not agree with its conclusion. > If the new study was right, there should be fossils of all major groups of living birds from well before the asteroid impact. But almost none have been found. > “The signal from the fossil record is not ambiguous,” Dr. Berv said. > Dr. Berv suspects that the correct story comes from the fossils, and that most major groups of birds emerged after the asteroid impact. The potential problem with the new study, he said, is that it assumes that the bird DNA accumulated mutations at a steady rate from one generation to the next.
  • nemo 3y ago
    I'd suggest reading the article which quotes experts in the field explaining that the fossil record does not fit this model.