Ever since Darwin and his contemporaries in the 19th century, biologists have been trying to reconstruct the “family trees” of animals by carefully examining the differences in their structure and structure (morphology).However, with the advent of rapid genetic sequencing techniques, biologists are now able to use genetic data (cells) to help consolidate the evolutionary relationships of species faster and at a lower cost, often proving that living things we thought were closely related are actually completely differenttree branches.
For the first time, scientists in Bath compared the trees of evolution based on morphology with those based on molecular data, and mapped them according to their geographical location.They found that animals grouped together by molecular trees were closer to one another than by animals collected from morphological trees.
Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the Milner Center for Evolution at the University of Bath, said: “It turns out we have a lot of flaws in our evolutionary trees.”For more than a century, we have classified living things by the way they look and feel, but cellular data often tells a very different story.“Our research proves statistically that when you construct an evolutionary tree for animals based on their cellular specifications, they usually fit better with their geographical distribution.
“Where things live – their biogeography – is an important source of evidence for evolution that is common to Darwin and his contemporaries.”For example, small elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees all come from the same large branch of evolutionary mammals – despite the fact that they look completely different from each other (and live in very different ways).
“The molecular trees have all been incorporated into a group called Afrotheria, which is named because they all come from the African continent, so this group is subject to biogeography.”Studies have found that mutations – when a trait varies from two unrelated groups of species to another — are far more common than previously thought biologists.
Professor Wills stated: “We already have many famous examples of evolutionary change, such as the flight of birds, bats and insects, or the complex camera eyes that vary in squid and humans.“But now with the details of the cells, we see that evolution is a fact of life – things that we thought were closely related are often far removed from the tree of life.People who live like boys are not usually associated with the celebrities, and individuals in the family do not always look alike – the same as the trees of evolution.
“It proves that evolution is a mere figment of the imagination, it comes with the same solution every time a problem is encountered in a different branch of the evolutionary tree.”It means that evolving evolution has been misleading us – even the most brilliant biologists and anatomists – for over 100 years!”
Dr. Jack Oyston, Research Associate and lead author of the paper, said: “The idea that biogeography could show evolutionary history was a major part of what motivated Darwin to develop his theory of evolution by chance, so it is surprising that t as a way to test the accuracy of evolutionary trees in this way before now.”Most interestingly, we find strong evidence of molecular tree statistics that they are best suited not only for groups like Afrotheria, but for every tree of life for birds, reptiles, insects and plants as well.
“Being such a widespread pattern makes it very useful as a general study of various evolutionary trees, but it also shows how evolution has come about when it comes to misleading us.”
A new study led by scientists at the Milner Center for Evolution at the University of Bath suggests that cutting the trees of evolution by comparing anatomy rather than genetic sequences is misleading. This study, published in Communications Biology, shows that we often need to alter the work of hundreds of scientists who specialize in living things.
Source Journal Reference: Jack W. Oyston, Mark Wilkinson, Marcello Ruta, Matthew A. Wills. Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones. Communications Biology, 2022; 5 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03482-x
READ ALSO : Environment Focus: What force controls the elevation of mountains?
