Which of the following statements is correctly stated?Homology is due to ahared ancestry whereas analogy is due to convergentevolution.Analogy is due to shared anceatry whereas homology is due to convergent evolution.Homology is due to ahared biochemistry whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics.Homology is due to shared morphology whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics.S0000

Homology and analogy are the two types of evidences used to study evolution.

Homology is due to shared ancestry whereas analogy in due to convergenovolution, Analogy is due to shared ancestry whereas homology is due to convergent bvolution. Homology is due to shared biochemistry whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics. Homology is due to shared morphology whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics. EO000

Homology is due to shared ancestry whereas analogy in due to convergenovolution, Analogy is due to shared ancestry whereas homology is due to convergent bvolution. Homology is due to shared biochemistry whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics. Homology is due to shared morphology whereas analogy is due to shared molecular characteristics. EO000

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter16: Reproductive Technology, Genetic Testing, And Gene Therapy

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 14QP: Is gene transfer a form of eugenics? Is it advantageous to use gene transfer to eliminate some...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

The Evolutionary History and Spread of Our Species (Homo sapiens) a. Briefly describe the two major theories discussed in this chapter about the origin of modern humans. b. Which of these two theories would predict a closer relationship for the various modern human populations? c. Which of the two theories is best supported by the genetic evidence?
Discuss the significance of the HardyWeinberg principle as it relates to evolution and list the five conditions required for genetic equilibrium.
The phylogenetic tree for vertebrates depicted below was constructed from sequence data for two rRNA mitochondrial genes (12S and 16S). How do the results of this analysis compare with the phylogenetic trees in Figures 32.10 and 32.24? Identify the major clades of vertebrates on the tree depicted below. Source: R. Zardoya and A. Meyer. 1998. Complete mitochondrial genome suggests diapsid affinities of turtles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 95:1422614231. Copyright 1998 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. Would you object if you were arrested for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, and ordered to provide a DNA sample?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What if you learned that law enforcement officials were saving the DNA sample for use in tests that might be developed in the future?
INTERPRET DATA Which of the primates in Figure 18-18 is the most distantly related to humans? Explain your answer. Figure 18-18 Differences in DNA nucleotide sequences as evidence of evolutionary relationships Comparing the same gene in different organisms provides a window into evolution. Here the differences in the non-protein-coding region of the -globin gene are compared between humans and other primates. Evolutionary biologists are rapidly expanding such studies from comparing one or several genes to comparing entire genomes.
The phylogenetic tree for 12 cat species (Felidae) reproduced at right was assembled from molecular sequence data. Which species is the domestic cats closest relative? Which clade is the sister taxon to tigers? Are bobcats more closely related to cougars or to ocelots? Source: From Warren E. Johnson et al. 2006. The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: A genetic assessment. Science 311:7377.
Genomics and Human Evolution The Denisovan genome contains sequences that originated from an unknown human species. Using Figure 19.11, speculate on which species this might be. Is it possible that there are other ancestral species that may remain to be discovered that would change the phylogeny presented in the figure? FIGURE 19.11 Estimates for the dates of origin and extinction for the three main groups of hominins (green, blue, and orange). The australopithecines split into two groups about 2.7 million years ago. One of those groups, the genus Homo, contains the ancestors to our species, H. sapiens.
In a cladistic analysis, a systematist groups together organisms that share: derived homologous traits. derived homoplastic traits. ancestral homologous traits. ancestral homoplastic traits. all of the above.
The fossil record of evolution correlates with evidence from ______. a. the geologic record b. radiometric dating c. comparing development patterns and morphology d. comparative biochemistry e. all of the above
To construct a phylogenetic tree by applying the principles of parsimony to molecular sequence data, one would: a. start by making assumptions about variations in the rates atwhich different DNA segments evolve. b. group together organisms that share the largest number ofancestral sequences. c. group together organisms that share derived sequences, matching the groups to those defined by morphologicalcharacters. d. group together organisms that share derived sequences, minimizing the number of hypothesized evolutionarychanges. e. identify derived sequences by studying the embryology of theorganisms.