the only "relatedness" in regards to evolution is in connection with phyla, all members of a particular phyla are related.
Are you actually saying that phyla are the only taxonomic group that correspond to actual relatedness? So members of a particular genus, family, order or class aren't related? Or do you just mean that "phylum" is the highest taxonomic rank that indicates relatedness?
Either way, what criteria do you use to find whether all members of a taxon are related or not?
trust me, i have similar questions concerning koonins paper.
apparently there were eukaryote super groups then there was "animal phyla".
the BBE (cambrian explosion) left no history for this event.
yes, apparently animals that belong to the same phyla are related.
i have no idea what happened to the higher classification of animals, unless of course they are "manufactured" to make it appear the BBE never happened, which is a distinct possibility.
jablonka and lamb says there is ample evidence for phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes.
Yes, and "phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes" are very different from "different species having virtually identical DNA structure". The latter is what you claimed existed, and what I'm interested in finding examples of.
apparently what these 2 are saying is, there is a disconnect between DNA and phenotypic changes, the structure of DNA is not the cause.
I'm also curious though: it sounds like you're saying epigenetics can account for the wide variety of phenotypes in nature because epigenetics mean the same DNA leads to different phenotypes. If so, what accounts for the wide variety of genotypes in nature?
transposon and epigenetics.
by the above 2 processes it isn't hard for me to envision that the exact same DNA can give rise to a vast number of entirely different organisms, all members of that particular phyla, and do so within a very short period of time, possibly less than 200 years, maybe way less.
these 2 processes could easily explain the BBE.
my question is, what triggered it.
No, not "your position" with no qualifier, i.e. your position on any random question that passes through your head. In that particular quote I wanted to know "your position on whether phylogeny cannot imply relatedness". It's nice you did answer that question higher up (albeit in a very surprising and confusing way that just raised more questions, but that's not bad), because the rest of that paragraph describes a position on a completely different issue that does little to inform the question I was actually asking.
it's obvious, due to the processes mentioned above, that 2 organisms can appear to be related, but actually aren't.
also, even with the modern synthesis, phylogeny is inferred, not actually demonstrated.
this is one of the major problems with the modern synthesis, almost all of the data is based on inferences.
As Michael Meaney (2001a: 52,58) wrote more than a decade ago: “There are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment ,and there are no environmental factors
that function independently of the genome. At no point in life is the operation of the genome independent of the context in which it functions. ”
Moreover, “environmental events occurring at a later stage of development can alter a developmental trajectory” making meaningless any linear regression studies of
nature and nurture.
Genes are always “genes in context”, context-dependent catalysts of cellular changes, rather “controllers” of developmental progress and direction” (Nijhout, 1990: 444), susceptible to be reversed in their expression by individual’s experiences during development (Champagne and Mashoodh, (2009).
. . .
Paradoxically, it was exactly the completion of the Human
Genome Project that showed that the view of the gene as a discrete
and autonomous agent powerfully leading traits and developmen-
tal processes is more of a fantasy than actually being founded on
scientific evidence, as highlighted by the “missing heritability”
case (Maher,2008). The image of a distinct, particulate gene
marked by “clearly defined boundaries ”and performing just one
job,i.e.,coding for proteins, has been overturned in recent years
(Griffiths and Stotz, 2013: 68; see also Barnes and Dupré,2008;
. . .
The more genetic research has gone forward, the
more genomes are seen to “respond in a flexible manner to signals
from a massive regulatory architecture that is, increasingly, the
real focus of research in ‘genetics’” (Griffiths and Stotz, 2013: 2;
see also Barnes and Dupré, 2008; Dupré, 2012).
- meloni, published: 21 May 2014
the above completely obliterates population genetics analysis.
The genotype of an organism is the inherited map it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.
the above seems to imply there is a third variable that isn't being considered.