an interesting paper has been published today -
and worth for a very extended discussion for sure
So, lets read your opinions!
https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22064!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/546025a.pdf
I've long been not much of a fan of trying to "impose order on the natural world" because there isn't one
If two animals look identical, have the same biological needs and adaptations, for me, they are the same "species" (e.g. Lacerta viridis and Lacerta billineata).
Who cares if they have a few different genomes
millions of years ago their ancestors came from different places or different "lineages", this is irrelevant to preserving them and their habitat now in this moment of time.
I also find it funny how we easily split or lump "species" when it comes to other animals but not to our own "species".
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:Who cares if they have a few different genomes
did you mean genes?
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:if they are different genetically they will probably display these differences in phenotype, right?
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:it matters because effort of nature preservation focuses on genetic diversity so we have to take into consideration whether certain species is a living fossil for example, this will imply that it is very important to preserve it, genetics matters
are differences in genes always displayed in phenotype?
Did you read the article or just my post?
This kind of God-like selective conservation isn't going to get us anywhere. I repeat, I'm not saying history of evolution is not fascinating and worth studying.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest