Trends in Genetics
Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision
Section snippets
Chapter 1: the origin of the primary 310±0 million-year calibration
The saga starts with ‘an accurate calibration point’ for obtaining ‘reliable estimates of divergence times from molecular data’ [1]. From among the many calibration points available in the paleontological literature, ‘the relatively well-constrained fossil divergence time between the ancestor of birds (diapsid reptiles) and mammals (synapsid reptiles)’ was selected [1]. This divergence time was said to be 310 million years ago (MYA). As a calibrating measurement, the 310-MYA value is treated as
Chapter 2: the origin of the secondary 110±0 million-year calibration
The second chapter purports to estimate ‘a molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution’ [3], although what are in fact estimated are divergence times between humans and other organisms. Because of a lack of sufficient molecular data from chicken, the primary calibration point can not be used for the vast majority of protein comparisons. Kumar and Hedges [3], thus, opted for a secondary calibration point. (Secondary calibration points are divergence-time estimates that have been derived from
Chapter 3: transubstantiation of a secondary calibration into a primary calibration
The reason for the transformation of the secondary calibration date into a primary one, which is equivalent to blood becoming Cabernet Sauvignon, is purportedly based on external evidence: ‘Fossil evidence (Archibald 1996) also supports an early divergence time (>90 Ma) for the primate-rodent split’ [4]. Unfortunately, the Science article by Archibald [48] is entitled Fossil Evidence for a Late Cretaceous Origin of “Hoofed” Mammals, and as such deals with neither rodents nor humans. Thus, the
Chapter 4: tautological comparison of the 310±0 versus 110±0 MYA calibrations
An important detour in the saga of assigning precise timescales to the evolution of everything is found in a paper in which the miracle of transubstantiation attains fulfillment [5]. In this paper, the 310±0 MYA and the 110±0 MYA dates are treated as ‘independent’ calibrations for purposes of dating avian divergence events. The results based on the 310±0 MYA calibration and the results based on the 110±0 MYA calibration are compared and discussed. Unsurprisingly, because one date was derived
Chapter 5: errorless molecular estimates substitute for fossil evidence
The fifth chapter in the saga marks the emergence of five tertiary calibration points [6]. That is, five estimates from Wang et al. [4] that were derived from the secondary 110±0 MYA calibration, which in turn was derived from the primary 310±0 MYA calibration, are turned into ‘errorless’ (±0) calibrations, from which further molecular-clock estimates are derived. The tertiary calibration pairs are: plants versus animals, animals versus fungi, plants versus fungi, nematodes versus arthropods
Chapter 6: dating Genesis
The continuation of the saga is as predictable as it is outlandish. By using tertiary, and possibly quaternary, quinary and senary derivations from the mythical 310±0 chicken–human calibration, five of the most ancient divergence events are dated [2]. The pinnacle is reached with an estimate of 3.97±0.25 billion years ago for the divergence between archaebacteria and eukaryotes. An illustrative example of the extrapolations involved in estimating ancient divergence events is shown in Figure 2.
Postscript: the 110±0 MYA calibration dies but its descendants survive
In what will surely not be the last chapter in this story, a recent review in Trends in Genetics [13] contains four blood-curdling innovations involving statistical methodology, taxonomy, physics of time reversal and logic. The statistical novelty concerns the primate–artiodactyl divergence time, which was 90±8 MYA in Hedges at al. [1], whereas in Ref. [13] it is quoted as ‘90–98 million years ago.’ This change turns the mean into the lower end of the range and reduces by 76% the
Conclusion and recommendation
Despite their allure, we must sadly conclude that all divergence estimates discussed here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are without merit. Our advice to the reader is: whenever you see a time estimate in the evolutionary literature, demand uncertainty!
Acknowledgements
We thank John H. Calder, Daniel A. Chamovitz, Or M. Graur, S. Blair Hedges, Michael S.-Y. Lee, Michael Ovadia, Robert R. Reisz and Shaul Shaul for information.
References (51)
- et al.
Evolutionary history of the enolase gene family
Gene
(2000) - et al.
Playing chicken (Gallus gallus): Methodological inconsistencies of molecular divergence date estimates due to secondary calibration points
Gene
(2002) The origin and early evolutionary history of amniotes
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1997)Evolutionary age of the Galápagos iguanas predates the age of the present Galápagos Islands
Mol. Phylog. Evol.
(1997)Phylogenetic position of turtles among amniotes: evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear genes
Gene
(2000)Continental breakup and the ordinal divergence of birds and mammals
Nature
(1996)- Hedges, S.B. et al. (2001) A genomic timescale for the origin of eukaryotes. BMC Evol. Biol. 1441–2148/1/4...
- et al.
A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Nature
(1998) Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.
(1999)- et al.
Calibration of avian molecular clocks
Mol. Biol. Evol.
(2001)
Molecular evidence for the early colonization of land by fungi and plants
Science
The origin and evolution of model organisms
Nat. Rev. Genet.
Vertebrate genomes compared
Science
Human and ape molecular clocks and constraints on paleontological hypotheses
J. Hered.
A molecular phylogeny of reptiles
Science
Genomic clocks and evolutionary timescales
Trends Genet.
The fossil record of North American mammals: evidence for a Paleocene evolutionary radiation
Syst. Biol.
Early origins of modern birds and mammals: molecules vs. morphology
BioEssays
Molecular clock calibrations and metazoan divergence dates
J. Mol. Evol.
The power of relative rates tests depends on the data
J. Mol. Evol.
Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach
Mol. Biol. Evol.
r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock
Bioinformatics
Perils of paralogy: Using HSP70 genes for inferring organismal phylogenies
Syst. Biol.
Dating the tree of life
Science
Cited by (547)
Carbon cycling: How much life has ever existed on Earth?
2023, Current BiologyThe geologic history of primary productivity
2023, Current BiologyIs it inappropriate to ask for your age? Evaluating parameter impact on tree dating in a challenging clade (Macroscelidea)
2023, Molecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionPhylogenetic systematics of Yphthimoides Forster, 1964 and related taxa, with notes on the biogeographical history of Yphthimoides species
2022, Molecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionDeciphering reticulate evolution of the largest group of polyploid vertebrates, the subfamily cyprininae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes)
2022, Molecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionUnexpectedly high levels of lineage diversity in Sundaland puddle frogs (Dicroglossidae: Occidozyga Kuhl and van Hasselt, 1822)
2021, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution