Exactly. You can't define homoplasy independent of homology, which was circularly redefined to include common descent by declaring common descent proven. But homoplasy and convergent evolution contradict the circular redefinition. Also, molecular family trees are more accurate to biogeography than morphological ones
This explanation is quite partisan towards biological functionalism. Homoplasy and convergence are not bijective concepts. Homoplasy (in modern parlance) also encompasses parallelism, which espouses independently derived features channeled by shared/ancestral internal constraints. Historically, homoplasy was actually a sub-category of homology (i.e. Lankester, 1870), but was then separated after Darwin’s development of adaptive natural selection. This separation happened in a confused manner, and continues to cause confusion today, with parallelism being obfuscated during the dominance of the Modern Synthesis (relevant discussion in Gould’s Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pgs 1069-1089). Modern Evo-devo has resurrected parallelism though, and this should be taught accordingly (whether you agree or not, it is a very live area of research).
Great explanation! Thanks for substantiating with examples and especially removing the doubt between convergence and homoplasy.
I'm so glad I could help!
Thank you so much for such an easy to understand explanation and especially for clarifying the homoplasy in our language :) This is so helpful!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am so happy I could help you.
This helped me so much thank you professor
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate knowing my explanations help people.
Awesome, Mam... Gorgeous lecture
wow thanks you made it more clear :)
Thanks Laura :)
Very useful
very good!
Since homoplasy exist ,so why is it still preached all organism have common ancestor isnt it objectively wrong ?
Exactly. You can't define homoplasy independent of homology, which was circularly redefined to include common descent by declaring common descent proven. But homoplasy and convergent evolution contradict the circular redefinition. Also, molecular family trees are more accurate to biogeography than morphological ones
This explanation is quite partisan towards biological functionalism. Homoplasy and convergence are not bijective concepts. Homoplasy (in modern parlance) also encompasses parallelism, which espouses independently derived features channeled by shared/ancestral internal constraints. Historically, homoplasy was actually a sub-category of homology (i.e. Lankester, 1870), but was then separated after Darwin’s development of adaptive natural selection. This separation happened in a confused manner, and continues to cause confusion today, with parallelism being obfuscated during the dominance of the Modern Synthesis (relevant discussion in Gould’s Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pgs 1069-1089). Modern Evo-devo has resurrected parallelism though, and this should be taught accordingly (whether you agree or not, it is a very live area of research).
i love you