6 ms·
Presumably having more of the genes that remain from the original stock. That said I’d be pretty surprised if this was significant at the breed level—most bree
by drb91 8y ago
Presumably having more of the genes that remain from the original stock.
That said I’d be pretty surprised if this was significant at the breed level—most breeds are a fraction of the 11kya mentioned here.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago> Presumably having more of the genes that remain from the original stock. That only makes sense if you believe that all "genes" are equally significant. By that metric, a hyrax is more similar to an elephant than it is to a marmot.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- drb91 8y agoProbably fair, I’ve hit the limits of my understanding here.
- swebs 8y agoThat does not matter. We want to measure closeness, not superficial similarity. Which species have the most recent common ancestor. A hyrax is closer to an elephant. It's not even a rodent. Dolphins and whales aren't fish either, even though they live under water and have fins.
- stan_rogers 8y agoWell, in a monophylitic sense, dolphins and whales are fish... as are kangaroos and orangutans. Sarcopterygii, perhaps, but if we're not fish on that basis, then neither are coelacanths and lungfish.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoIf you want to measure that way, then the idea of one modern breed being closer to a common ancestor than another modern breed is is total nonsense; by definition, they're all equally close.