3 ms·
> “would seem like common sense, but never had been shown,” and might not be the case "in general" I mean convergent evolution lead to different species with
by dathinab 4y ago
> “would seem like common sense, but never had been shown,”
and might not be the case "in general"
I mean convergent evolution lead to different species with very different DNA looking similar.
And evolution doesn't choose what to do, stuff (mutations etc.) "just happen randomly" and some things propagate more then others.
So for me two unrelated people with rather different DNA happen to look extremely similar seems to be quite reasonable.
Through some unrelated people having rather similar DNA is as reasonable.
- pikminguy 4y agoThe article also notes that the similarities surprisingly end at the genome. Unlike twins these folks don't have especially similar microbiomes or lifestyles or other environmental factors. So the similarity is strictly genetic which is actually a little unexpected. With a large enough sample set these folks might actually be a useful population for study. People with the genetic similarity of siblings but not environment.
- dathinab 4y agoFun thing is while my post was written with a "I'm not sure about this article" mindset it kinda supports the article. I mean what is convergent evolution in context of an single species? Wouldn't it be pretty much genetic variances of multiple people which are unrelated randomly converging by chance? Sure with convergent evolution in nature you still don't necessary have DNA similarities, but there the DNA also largely diverged to a point of it being different species before converging. For humans the DNA was always similar so the simplest (i.e. most likely) way would to reach the same "looking" outcome would be by having the same changes/mixing of DNA variations.