You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Could we figure out evolution without fossils?
My comment became so long, @gavvet, i decided it was better to post it as an article on my blog. I would, you check it out.
My comment became so long, @gavvet, i decided it was better to post it as an article on my blog. I would, you check it out.
Yours is a comprehensive response for sure but perhaps some semantics crept in.
I suppose my perspective is such that, as much as I love geomorphology, geology and paleontology, it seems, at least from my perspective, that the genetic record (as preserved in the genomes we can study) is far more comprehensive a record than the fossil record can ever hope to be. The genetic record gives us insight in far greater detail and granularity than external morphology.
As with almost non-existent genetics in Darwin's day there were far more "gaps" in the fossil record back then. It's my opinion that genetics etc. even as late starters, close their "gaps" faster and will ultimately provide a far more detailed and comprehensive record.
I am however grateful we have both complimentary records. It generally requires two eyes to achieve binocular vision....
That shades more light, i see your perspective more clearly.. And true. As alludes the Profesor Dawkin's,
I am more grateful. You know the question of evolution can be as divisive as it gets, i am glad we can find common ground.
Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to follow up, and respond.
I'm largely in agreement with your reply here. Whole genome sequencing of organisms have allowed scientists to identify evolutionary relatedness in well conserved areas of the genome between species. Genetics (study of single genes in organisms) is gradually and almost being completely replaced by Genomics (study of entire genes in organisms).