Basic introduction to homology 20 Jan 2009 From Evolution: Education and Outreach comes a nice introduction to the concept of homology. Late note: OK, not so good. I saw only the cute pix, and presumed the author understood paraphyly. But as I didn’t have an entirely functional computer at the time I leapt in too soon. See Malte Ebach’s and David Williams’ takedown here. Their point is that paraphyletic groups are formed by what hasn’t evolved, and so they are fundamentally antievolutionary groupings. Evolution Species and systematics
Censorship Feet of clay problem 23 Nov 202223 Nov 2022 What to do with historical bastardry in our heroes? This is republished from my substack. Henceforth such posts – the equivalent of a magazine article or an essay – will appear first on the substack and then on the blog evolvingthoughts.au. After a distance of time, they will end up… Read More
Evolution How to track a crisis 19 Mar 2010 The following post is by my friend Matt Silberstein. Matt is deeply concerned about the events occurring in places like Darfur, and brought the following to my attention. I asked him to write a post, and here it is. Hi folks, Matt here sitting in for our silverback. I like… Read More
Evolution Quotemining in the 19thC 23 Jul 2009 Dispersal of Darwin again has an excellent piece of the history of evolution: he traces the quotemining by the theologians in the 1880s of John Tyndal, a known Darwinian of the day, to “show” that evolution is unproven and speculation. It seems that the dishonesty is unchanging. Read More
I disagree. It is not a very good paper on homology at all. It is, however, a good introduction to analogy and homoplasy. Pity she missed out paraphyly and polyphyly and other non-evolutionary concepts. The title is very misleading.
I disagree. It is not a very good paper on homology at all. It is, however, a good introduction to analogy and homoplasy. Pity she missed out paraphyly and polyphyly and other non-evolutionary concepts. The title is very misleading.
I disagree. It is not a very good paper on homology at all. It is, however, a good introduction to analogy and homoplasy. Pity she missed out paraphyly and polyphyly and other non-evolutionary concepts. The title is very misleading.
I wrote something about it here: http://urhomology.blogspot.com/2009/01/absence-of-evolution-homology.html
See Malte Ebach’s and David Williams’ takedown Yeah… I wouldn’t exactly call that a takedown. See Nick and RPM’s comments to the posting, with which I agree. By the way, why is it about “bringing homology into focus”? Because it is in an issue about eye evolution, and there has been significant debate about whether eyes are homologous (genetics) or analogous (structure). She was introducing the concepts in an accessible manner that other authors (Todd Oakley, Joram Piatigorsky, and I) brought up in some more technical articles. That should have been obvious from the abstract: “Anyone who has skimmed a high school biology textbook will be familiar with the iconic examples of homology that seem inseparable from any explanation of the term: the limb structure of four-legged animals, the human tailbone and the more elaborate tail of monkeys, and the remarkable similarities among the embryological development of fish, birds, and humans. These same examples make their way from edition to edition, along with the classic illustration of an analogous structure: the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats. But is that really all there is to say about homologies and analogies? Several articles in this issue discuss these concepts more deeply in the context of eye evolution (Gregory 2008; Oakley and Pankey 2008; Piatigorsky 2008). Homologies and analogies, it seems, are not a black and white issue—especially when it comes to vision. ”
See Malte Ebach’s and David Williams’ takedown Yeah… I wouldn’t exactly call that a takedown. See Nick and RPM’s comments to the posting, with which I agree. By the way, why is it about “bringing homology into focus”? Because it is in an issue about eye evolution, and there has been significant debate about whether eyes are homologous (genetics) or analogous (structure). She was introducing the concepts in an accessible manner that other authors (Todd Oakley, Joram Piatigorsky, and I) brought up in some more technical articles. That should have been obvious from the abstract: “Anyone who has skimmed a high school biology textbook will be familiar with the iconic examples of homology that seem inseparable from any explanation of the term: the limb structure of four-legged animals, the human tailbone and the more elaborate tail of monkeys, and the remarkable similarities among the embryological development of fish, birds, and humans. These same examples make their way from edition to edition, along with the classic illustration of an analogous structure: the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats. But is that really all there is to say about homologies and analogies? Several articles in this issue discuss these concepts more deeply in the context of eye evolution (Gregory 2008; Oakley and Pankey 2008; Piatigorsky 2008). Homologies and analogies, it seems, are not a black and white issue—especially when it comes to vision. ”
See Malte Ebach’s and David Williams’ takedown Yeah… I wouldn’t exactly call that a takedown. See Nick and RPM’s comments to the posting, with which I agree. By the way, why is it about “bringing homology into focus”? Because it is in an issue about eye evolution, and there has been significant debate about whether eyes are homologous (genetics) or analogous (structure). She was introducing the concepts in an accessible manner that other authors (Todd Oakley, Joram Piatigorsky, and I) brought up in some more technical articles. That should have been obvious from the abstract: “Anyone who has skimmed a high school biology textbook will be familiar with the iconic examples of homology that seem inseparable from any explanation of the term: the limb structure of four-legged animals, the human tailbone and the more elaborate tail of monkeys, and the remarkable similarities among the embryological development of fish, birds, and humans. These same examples make their way from edition to edition, along with the classic illustration of an analogous structure: the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats. But is that really all there is to say about homologies and analogies? Several articles in this issue discuss these concepts more deeply in the context of eye evolution (Gregory 2008; Oakley and Pankey 2008; Piatigorsky 2008). Homologies and analogies, it seems, are not a black and white issue—especially when it comes to vision. ”
See Malte Ebach’s and David Williams’ takedown Yeah… I wouldn’t exactly call that a takedown. See Nick and RPM’s comments to the posting, with which I agree. By the way, why is it about “bringing homology into focus”? Because it is in an issue about eye evolution, and there has been significant debate about whether eyes are homologous (genetics) or analogous (structure). She was introducing the concepts in an accessible manner that other authors (Todd Oakley, Joram Piatigorsky, and I) brought up in some more technical articles. That should have been obvious from the abstract: “Anyone who has skimmed a high school biology textbook will be familiar with the iconic examples of homology that seem inseparable from any explanation of the term: the limb structure of four-legged animals, the human tailbone and the more elaborate tail of monkeys, and the remarkable similarities among the embryological development of fish, birds, and humans. These same examples make their way from edition to edition, along with the classic illustration of an analogous structure: the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats. But is that really all there is to say about homologies and analogies? Several articles in this issue discuss these concepts more deeply in the context of eye evolution (Gregory 2008; Oakley and Pankey 2008; Piatigorsky 2008). Homologies and analogies, it seems, are not a black and white issue—especially when it comes to vision. ”