[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Reconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)

> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:38:49 +1000
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Rconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)
> Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For example, the
> > functionally tridactly in T-rex and chicken would be regarded as a
> > unmodified shared condition.
> I don't know if you're referring to the manus or pes here.
 given that the manus of both is modified, can it really be considered an 
unmodified shared condition?  (thus leaving the pes as the only option)
> > Parsimony assumes the least evolutionary
> > changes as possible - least, not no evolution.

> In your example, this is a distinction without a difference. For _T.
> rex_ to have the same DNA sequence as a chicken requires no evolution
> at all.
if there's been no evolution, then what you call a chicken, is *Tyrannosauru
 rex* full stop.