- A Little meaningful molecular evidence is sometimes mistakenly thought to exist to support evolutionary relationships among living organisms, since protein and DNA sequences are assumed to be largely uninformative about relatedness according to standard textbooks
- B Cytochrome c (protein sequence similarity tracks phylogeny), DNA/RNA sequence analysis, homologous genes (Hox genes in all bilaterians), shared pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses found at same genome locations across related species
- C Mainly the physical fossil record is sometimes considered valid evidence, with molecular sequence data offering little useful support, since comparing cytochrome c or Hox gene sequences is considered scientifically uninformative in general practice
- D Molecular sequence evidence is sometimes mistakenly thought to systematically contradict patterns seen in the fossil record, with shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions pointing toward largely different phylogenetic trees as frequently described
Correct answer: B. Cytochrome c (protein sequence similarity tracks phylogeny), DNA/RNA sequence analysis, homologous genes (Hox genes in all bilaterians), shared pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses found at same genome locations across related species
Explanation: Molecular evidence: (1) Sequence similarity: cytochrome c amino acid sequences reveal evolutionary relationships (human and chimp differ by 0, human and yeast by 45); (2) DNA hybridization; (3) Homologous genes: Hox genes control body patterning in all bilaterians; (4) Shared non-functional sequences (pseudogenes at same location); (5) Shared endogenous retroviruses (junk DNA from ancient viral integrations at identical genome positions in related species).
Concept context
Origin of life, Darwin's theory, natural selection, speciation, and evidence for evolution.