Misleading Appearances

Some organisms may be very closely related, even though a minor genetic change caused a major morphological difference to make them look quite different. For example, chimpanzees and humans, the skulls of which are shown in [Figure 2] are very similar genetically, sharing 99 percent¹ of their genes. However, chimpanzees and humans show considerable anatomical differences, including the degree to which the jaw protrudes in the adult and the relative lengths of our arms and legs.

 

However, unrelated organisms may be distantly related yet appear very much alike, usually because common adaptations to similar environmental conditions evolved in both. An example is the streamlined body shapes, the shapes of fins and appendages, and the shape of the tails in fishes and whales, which are mammals. These structures bear superficial similarity because they are adaptations to moving and maneuvering in the same environment—water. When a characteristic that is similar occurs by adaptive convergence (convergent evolution), and not because of a close evolutionary relationship, it is called an analogous structure. In another example, insects use wings to fly like bats and birds. We call them both wings because they perform the same function and have a superficially similar form, but the embryonic origin of the two wings is completely different. The difference in the development, or embryogenesis, of the wings in each case is a signal that insects and bats or birds do not share a common ancestor that had a wing. The wing structures, shown in [Figure 3] evolved independently in the two lineages.

Similar traits can be either homologous or analogous. Homologous traits share an evolutionary path that led to the development of that trait, and analogous traits do not. Scientists must determine which type of similarity a feature exhibits to decipher the phylogeny of the organisms being studied.

 

Molecular Comparisons

With the advancement of DNA technology, the area of molecular systematics, which describes the use of information on the molecular level including DNA sequencing, has blossomed. New analysis of molecular characters not only confirms many earlier classifications, but also uncovers previously made errors. Molecular characters can include differences in the amino-acid sequence of a protein, differences in the individual nucleotide sequence of a gene, or differences in the arrangements of genes. Phylogenies based on molecular characters assume that the more similar the sequences are in two organisms, the more closely related they are. Different genes change evolutionarily at different rates and this affects the level at which they are useful at identifying relationships. Rapidly evolving sequences are useful for determining the relationships among closely related species. More slowly evolving sequences are useful for determining the relationships between distantly related species. To determine the relationships between very different species such as Eukarya and Archaea, the genes used must be very ancient, slowly evolving genes that are present in both groups, such as the genes for ribosomal RNA. Comparing phylogenetic trees using different sequences and finding them similar helps to build confidence in the inferred relationships.

Sometimes two segments of DNA in distantly related organisms randomly share a high percentage of bases in the same locations, causing these organisms to appear closely related when they are not. For example, the fruit fly shares 60 percent of its DNA with humans.² In this situation, computer-based statistical algorithms have been developed to help identify the actual relationships, and ultimately, the coupled use of both morphologic and molecular information is more effective in determining phylogeny.

Building Phylogenetic Trees

Cladistics rests on three assumptions. The first is that living things are related by descent from a common ancestor, which is a general assumption of evolution. The second is that speciation occurs by splits of one species into two, never more than two at a time, and essentially at one point in time. This is somewhat controversial, but is acceptable to most biologists as a simplification. The third assumption is that traits change enough over time to be considered to be in a different state .It is also assumed that one can identify the actual direction of change for a state. In other words, we assume that an amniotic egg is a later character state than non-amniotic eggs. This is called the polarity of the character change. We know this by reference to a group outside the clade: for example, insects have non-amniotic eggs; therefore, this is the older or ancestral character state. Cladistics compares ingroups and outgroups. An ingroup (lizard, rabbit and human in our example) is the group of taxa being analyzed. An outgroup (lancelet, lamprey and fish in our example) is a species or group of species that diverged before the lineage containing the group(s) of interest. By comparing ingroup members to each other and to the outgroup members, we can determine which characteristics are evolutionary modifications determining the branch points of the ingroup’s phylogeny.

If a characteristic is found in all of the members of a group, it is a shared ancestral character because there has been no change in the trait during the descent of each of the members of the clade. Although these traits appear interesting because they unify the clade, in cladistics they are considered not helpful when we are trying to determine the relationships of the members of the clade because every member is the same. In contrast, consider the amniotic egg characteristic of [Figure 4]. Only some of the organisms have this trait, and to those that do, it is called a shared derived character because this trait changed at some point during descent. This character does tell us about the relationships among the members of the clade; it tells us that lizards, rabbits, and humans group more closely together than any of these organisms do with fish, lampreys, and lancelets.

A sometimes confusing aspect of “ancestral” and “derived” characters is that these terms are relative. The same trait could be either ancestral or derived depending on the diagram being used and the organisms being compared. Scientists find these terms useful when distinguishing between clades during the building of phylogenetic trees, but it is important to remember that their meaning depends on context.

Choosing the Right Relationships

Constructing a phylogenetic tree, or cladogram, from the character data is a monumental task that is usually left up to a computer. The computer draws a tree such that all of the clades share the same list of derived characters. But there are other decisions to be made, for example, what if a species presence in a clade is supported by all of the shared derived characters for that clade except one? One conclusion is that the trait evolved in the ancestor, but then changed back in that one species. Also a character state that appears in two clades must be assumed to have evolved independently in those clades. These inconsistencies are common in trees drawn from character data and complicate the decision-making process about which tree most closely represents the real relationships among the taxa.

To aid in the tremendous task of choosing the best tree, scientists often use a concept called maximum parsimony, which means that events occurred in the simplest, most obvious way. This means that the “best” tree is the one with the fewest number of character reversals, the fewest number of independent character changes, and the fewest number of character changes throughout the tree. Computer programs search through all of the possible trees to find the small number of trees with the simplest evolutionary pathways. Starting with all of the homologous traits in a group of organisms, scientists can determine the order of evolutionary events of which those traits occurred that is the most obvious and simple.

These tools and concepts are only a few of the strategies scientists use to tackle the task of revealing the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Recently, newer technologies have uncovered surprising discoveries with unexpected relationships, such as the fact that people seem to be more closely related to fungi than fungi are to plants. Sound unbelievable? As the information about DNA sequences grows, scientists will become closer to mapping the evolutionary history of all life on Earth.