On Sat, 24 Sep 1994 17:26:12 GMT,
Jonathan Paul Carson <jpc4e at dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
snip snip
>There is some criticism directed at the establishment of more complex
>phylogenetic trees, because the criteria of determining which
>species are "more primitive" are a bit arbitrary. Also, it is not
>easy to *definitively* draw a map of the branching of species,
>because we do not have many (or any) protein or DNA sequences
>from tens of millions of years ago! However, on a small scale,
>this seems to shed light on things nicely.
I wish we could ban "primitive" in this context. If we and che chimps split
off a few millions years ago it does not mean that *we* evolved and *they*
remained primitive. There are no primitive organisms on this planet now.
All are modern in the sense that they are adapted to living *NOW*. That
goes for your dog, the maple tree in your backyard or the Strep bacterium
that makes me miserable now.
Alain
