Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Convergent evolution: Animal only looks like a sea anemone

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
sea anemone/Bernard Picton, U Northern Ireland

It belongs to a different, new order, researchers say.

“Anemones are very simple animals,” Rodríguez said. “Because of this, they are grouped together by their lack of characters — for example, the absence of a skeleton or the lack of colony-building, like you see in corals. So it wasn’t a huge surprise when we began to look at their molecular data and found that the traditional classifications of anemones were wrong.”

The researchers compared particular sections of DNA of more than 112 species of anemones collected from oceans around the world. Based on genetic data and the organization of their internal structures, the scientists reduced the sub-orders of anemones from four to two.

They also discovered that one of species that they analyzed is not a sea anemone at all. This animal, previously called Boloceroides daphneae, was discovered in 2006 in the deep east Pacific Ocean and labeled as one of the largest sea anemones in existence. But the new study shifts it outside of the tree of life for anemones. Instead, the researchers placed it in a newly created order — a classification equal to carnivoria in mammals or crocodilia in reptiles — under the sub-class Hexacorallia, which includes stony corals, anemones, and black corals. The new name of the animal, which lives next to hydrothermal vents, is Relicanthus daphneae.

Relicanthus daphneae is a classic example of convergent evolution, the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.

“Even though this animal looks very much like a sea anemone, it is not one,” Rodríguez said. “Both groups of animals lack the same characters, but our research shows that while the anemones lost those characters over millions of years of evolution, R. daphneae never had them. Putting these animals in the same group would be like classifying worms and snakes together because neither have legs.”

This is the creature, doing business under the old name:

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Robert Byers, Yes, exactly. DNA is used only to try to resolve embarrassingly bogus classification based on morphology. But . . . I just had an idea! Just as the sea anemone and Relicanthus daphneae was discovered to be "a classic example of convergent evolution," as the researchers put it, what about humans? It seems to me that a case can be made that humans and primates (chimps, orang-utans, and gorillas) are also "a classic example of convergent evolution." It makes sense considering some of the puzzling DNA analysis that variously shows humans closer to chimps in some cases, oran-utans in others, and even gorillas in others. The explanation is that we don't have a common ancestor, we are . . . converging! Unfortunately, I will have to predict that this novel insight will be rejected out-of-hand due to its incompatibility with the current narrative. ;-) -QQuerius
May 11, 2014
May
05
May
11
11
2014
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Robert, taxonomy started centuries before natural selection was proposed. And natural selection was proposed decades before DNA was discovered. Yet, DNA analysis corresponds remarkably well with what was done using taxonomy centuries before. As predicted.Acartia_bogart
May 11, 2014
May
05
May
11
11
2014
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Aha. So classification by looks or by DNA is bumping into each other. As predicted. this is because both ways are based on mere lines of reassoning of trait comparison. There is no evidence or relationships except this way. HOW did the scientists make this mistake about this thing? What happened to their science? who screwed up? Could this be going on all the time? YUPRobert Byers
May 11, 2014
May
05
May
11
11
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply