Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

What about longer term rates estimated from fossils millions of years old?

Posted by alexei on 01 Nov 2008 at 02:41 GMT

In a previous paper by some of the authors on this paper

it was argued that the rate of mutation over short time frames (thousands of years) is different from the phylogenetic rate based on fossil calibrations (millions of years).

In this paper you continue to support rate estimates (now by two different and clever methods) that are far faster than the rates obtained using fossil calibrations over millions of years.

Yet you completely ignore this fact and argue that there is no discrepancy. Why do you ignore the thousands of papers that estimates very slow rates in avians (including penguins) based on older fossil calibrations?