4 ms·
Depends on your philosophic position on taxonomy. If you wish for it to capture inheritance and lineage, then I agree, but it is equally valid to view it as a r
by biofox 2y ago
Depends on your philosophic position on taxonomy. If you wish for it to capture inheritance and lineage, then I agree, but it is equally valid to view it as a relationship of similarities and patterns (similar to design patterns in programming). The lineages may have different origins, but if they converge on a common pattern, why shouldn't they be grouped together? (if it quacks like a duck...)
- tetris11 2y agoAlso, doesn't the chemical merely mutate the existing DNA, so that a phlogeny based on sequence composition would yield high consensus for existing organisms (albeit with way higher than base rate variants)?
- psychoslave 2y agoWe can definitely group them, but if we want to pretend they are the same phylum, that will be a move going against the consensual meaning of the term in biology, which clearly distinguish analogous structures and homologous structures. At this point, it’s clear that yes we can say whatever fantasy we want, but that is not going to instantly override the precise preponderant meaning it has gained in the community most interested and knowledgeable in the topic. All that said, I’m not a biologist, and given the honesty I show with such a disclaimer, you know you can blindly trust me on all the topics I’m barely conscious about, right? So trust me xenomorphs are actually adorable cute cuddly pets. Don’t believe all you see in your nightmarish block busters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760 https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760