4 ms·
Nope. Phylogenetic families are based on the degree of shared ancestry, not the presence or absence of any given trait. I mean, don't get me wrong, you CAN dev
by grey413 8y ago
Nope. Phylogenetic families are based on the degree of shared ancestry, not the presence or absence of any given trait.
I mean, don't get me wrong, you CAN develop phylogenetic trees based on traits. That's how Linnaeus and all subsequent taxonomists did it before they could just look directly at DNA. But it takes a lot of traits, and has been preempted by DNA based methods anyway.
- Alex3917 8y ago> Phylogenetic families are based on the degree of shared ancestry, not the presence or absence of any given trait. What about the rhyme “Sedges have edges, rushes are round, and grasses are hollow right down to the ground?” You’re telling me scientists are now saying that DNA testing is more accurate than just using the rhyme?
- bostonpete 8y agoSeems like they're just bending the facts to conform to their observations.
- ufo 8y agoIt is not about DNA vs phenotypes. The issue is that biologists are more interested in building an universal classification, a single tree of life for all species, than they are in building single-phenotype-based classifications that dont nest particularly well. For example, if you looked at just the ability to fly, you would group birds and bats on a same group. But that would be wrong because bats are clearly more closely related to flightless mammals than they are to birds. This becomes obvious if you account for more characteristics of the animal (presence of fur, bone shape, pregnancy, etc) or if you examine the DNA.