Newsgroups: sci.bio
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Coelocanth and evolution: x
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.152141.20203@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
References: <676362297.46@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 15:21:41 GMT

In article <676362297.46@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>
Vincent.A.Mazzarella@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Vincent A Mazzarella) writes:
>
>
>>	This claim is frequently made about animals that physically
>>resemble ancient ancestors.  It is, of course, false. [...]
>>At the molecular level, their enzymes and DNA have diverged at the same
>>rate as "modern" animals.  If an organism is living today, it is "modern,"
>>regardless of how it looks.
>
>But, of course, genomes of every human is quite different from every other
>human.

     I don't think this is true.  Could a molecular biologist comment on
this?  I seem to remember that the amount of DNA that distinguishes you
from me (or indeed that distinguishes me from a chimpanzee) is quite
small.

>While the genome of a coelocanth has changed over the millenia, it is
>noted that the meaningful changes, those that cause phenotypic changes,
>have been few.

     How do you know?  You're not defining phenotype merely be external
morphology are you?

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca