How does classification reflects evolutionary history?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
User avatar
harrypotter101
Coral
Coral
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:41 pm
Location: AF, UT

How does classification reflects evolutionary history?

Post by harrypotter101 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:32 pm

I've looked all over and I can't find an answer to my question so I need a bit of help. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
Have you gotten your Hogwarts letter yet?

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:41 pm

In theory, a given level of classification generally includes all of the descendants from a single common ancestor. For example, all of the species of a particular genus are believed to have evolved from a single common ancestor, as are all of the species in a family, order, class, etc. Obviously, the bigger the grouping, the farther back in history the common ancestor had to be!
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:47 am

Harry, I'd suggest looking up cladistics.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:18 pm

long story short: it doesn't.
An ideal clasification would do that. But our current taxonomy is nowhere near perfect. Why? Well, until about 2 decades ago, everyone thought we had reached a place where our classifcation was perfect, or anyways near perfection.
And then came the blow: molecular systematics.
What molecular systematics does is this: take a small piece of DNA(usually ribosomal DNA or chaperone DNA is used) and look for changes in it in different organisms. This is something much closer to reality and has revealed many things - the most dramatic being that not all prokaryotes are closely related, and that the Archea are more closely related to EK than PK. In 2002, the 3 domain system, based on molecular systematics was oficially accepted.
However, there are problems. different rates of evolution in different habitats and convergent evolution are 2 of the things that molecular systematics cannot take into account. and when you are using small pieces of DNA and not the whole genome, problems arrise. To point out one, a molecular taxonomy of the eudicots revealed that Curcubitaceae and Fagaceae are the closest related family. Clearly, that is not true.
Furthermore, creating a clasification based on the evolution of rRNA and the evolution of HSP70(a family of chaperone proteins) does not yield the same result.
That is why, the current taxonomy uses molecular methods in combination with classical ones.
THe holy grale in taxonomy is a science called phylogenomics. What those guys do is take the whole genomes of organisms and compare them. With such large number of bases being compared, this is a virtually fool-proof method. however, we will not be able to sequence the DNA of all living organisms for maaaaaaany years to come.
Right now, we work with what we have, and we don't have much.
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest