Re: Convergent Evolution Has Been Fooling Us: Humans didn't come from niggers in Africa

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Let's All Panic!

unread,
Jul 3, 2022, 8:40:10 AMJul 3
to
In article <XnsACA0AC12...@95.216.243.224>
governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...I spent all my money at the sex shoppe.

An evolutionary tree, or phylogenetic tree, is a branching
diagram showing the evolutionary relationships among various
biological species based upon similarities and differences in
their characteristics. Historically, this was done using their
physical characteristics — the similarities and differences in
various species’ anatomies.

However, advances in genetic technology now enable biologists to
use genetic data to decipher evolutionary relationships.
According to a new study, scientists are finding that the
molecular data is leading to much different results, sometimes
overturning centuries of scientific work in classifying species
by physical traits.

New research led by scientists at the Milner Center for
Evolution at the University of Bath suggests that determining
evolutionary trees of organisms by comparing anatomy rather than
gene sequences is misleading. The study, published in the
journal Communications Biology on May 31, 2022, shows that we
often need to overturn centuries of scholarly work that
classified living things according to how they look.

Since Darwin and his contemporaries in the 19th Century,
biologists have been trying to reconstruct the “family trees” of
animals by carefully examining differences in their anatomy and
structure (morphology).

However, with the development of rapid genetic sequencing
techniques, biologists are now able to use genetic (molecular)
data to help piece together evolutionary relationships for
species very quickly and cheaply, often proving that organisms
we once thought were closely related actually belong in
completely different branches of the tree.

For the first time, scientists at Bath compared evolutionary
trees based on morphology with those based on molecular data,
and mapped them according to geographical location.

They found that the animals grouped together by molecular trees
lived more closely together geographically than the animals
grouped using the morphological trees.

Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the
Milner Center for Evolution at the University of Bath, said: “It
turns out that we’ve got lots of our evolutionary trees wrong.

“For over a hundred years, we’ve been classifying organisms
according to how they look and are put together anatomically,
but molecular data often tells us a rather different story.

“Our study proves statistically that if you build an
evolutionary tree of animals based on their molecular data, it
often fits much better with their geographical distribution.

“Where things live – their biogeography – is an important source
of evolutionary evidence that was familiar to Darwin and his
contemporaries.

“For example, tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden
moles, and swimming manatees have all come from the same big
branch of mammal evolution — despite the fact that they look
completely different from one another (and live in very
different ways).

“Molecular trees have put them all together in a group called
Afrotheria, so-called because they all come from the African
continent, so the group matches the biogeography.”

The study found that convergent evolution – when a
characteristic evolves separately in two genetically unrelated
groups of organisms – is much more common than biologists
previously thought.

Professor Wills said: “We already have lots of famous examples
of convergent evolution, such as flight evolving separately in
birds, bats, and insects, or complex camera eyes evolving
separately in squid and humans.

“But now with molecular data, we can see that convergent
evolution happens all the time – things we thought were closely
related often turn out to be far apart on the tree of life.

So humans really didn't evolve from niggers like liberals claim.

https://scitechdaily.com/convergent-evolution-has-been-fooling-
us-most-of-our-evolutionary-trees-could-be-wrong/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages