3 ms·

Just curious - what's the problem with [2]? I only skimmed it, and I see that there is some controversy, but it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]

Just curious - what's the problem with [2]? I only skimmed it, and I see that there is some controversy, but it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]...

Estragon 17y ago
what's the problem with [2]? It tries to draw conclusions about the relative divergence times of different genes based on degrees of sequence similarity. This evidence is extremely weak, as there are much more likely explanations for the observed patterns of sequence variation, such as a shift in the selection pressure on a gene down the chimp/human lineage, for instance. Despite this weakness, they chose to highlight the sensational conclusion that human and chimp ancestors must have swapped genes through mating long after the presumed speciation time. This was irresponsible, because it caused a widespread public sensation when the paper came out. it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]... I'm not lumping them together. The common characteristic is that they're both garbage. The conclusion of [2] is a subtler form of it but not to an evolutionary scientist: the problem with it was immediately obvious to me and many others as soon as it came out. And it's a more serious corruption of scientific discourse because it's a Nature article. The data the analysis was based on has merit, though.
- worromot 17y ago
  I'll jump in re [2] with, I guess, a sociology of science comment. You seem to have very strong feelings about this paper, for some reason, but accusing the authors of, basically, fraud (i.e. publishing what is an obvious garbage to an expert) is way too harsh. Peer review cannot catch a deliberate falsification of data, but a BS interpretation (especially an "obviously" BS one) will be dealt with mercilessly. You can try and argue that the senior author on that particular paper has enough clout to bend the editors of Nature, but I don't see what would he gain from that. So my guess is that you take a strong position on this paper because it contradicts some favorite idea of yours, but the opposite view is not "obviously" wrong.
  - Estragon 17y ago
    That's an argument from the authority of Nature. Why don't you read the paper and decide for yourself?

Just curious - what's the problem with [2]? I only skimmed it, and I see that there is some controversy, but it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]...

Estragon 17y ago

what's the problem with [2]? It tries to draw conclusions about the relative divergence times of different genes based on degrees of sequence similarity. This evidence is extremely weak, as there are much more likely explanations for the observed patterns of sequence variation, such as a shift in the selection pressure on a gene down the chimp/human lineage, for instance. Despite this weakness, they chose to highlight the sensational conclusion that human and chimp ancestors must have swapped genes through mating long after the presumed speciation time. This was irresponsible, because it caused a widespread public sensation when the paper came out. it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]... I'm not lumping them together. The common characteristic is that they're both garbage. The conclusion of [2] is a subtler form of it but not to an evolutionary scientist: the problem with it was immediately obvious to me and many others as soon as it came out. And it's a more serious corruption of scientific discourse because it's a Nature article. The data the analysis was based on has merit, though.

worromot 17y ago
I'll jump in re [2] with, I guess, a sociology of science comment. You seem to have very strong feelings about this paper, for some reason, but accusing the authors of, basically, fraud (i.e. publishing what is an obvious garbage to an expert) is way too harsh. Peer review cannot catch a deliberate falsification of data, but a BS interpretation (especially an "obviously" BS one) will be dealt with mercilessly. You can try and argue that the senior author on that particular paper has enough clout to bend the editors of Nature, but I don't see what would he gain from that. So my guess is that you take a strong position on this paper because it contradicts some favorite idea of yours, but the opposite view is not "obviously" wrong.
- Estragon 17y ago
  That's an argument from the authority of Nature. Why don't you read the paper and decide for yourself?