This blog poses one question: Why do the graphical representations that accompany evolutionary biology's rhetorical perception of common ancestry, when cross compared, contradict the concept? With few exceptions, the field's subject matter analysis is compartmentalized by individual concepts, more commonly selected features within a concept that are analyzed in a manner that precludes any conclusions that are not accommodated by the common ancestry premise. Also with few exceptions, when the graphics which are intended to visually illustrate the research that involves an individial compartmentalized concept, and when different compartmentalized graphics are combined into a relational graphic, anomalies are sufficiently apparent that nullify common ancestry plausibilities of each or all of the individual graphics. This blog's interpretation of interfacing the compartmentalized concepts is summarized in following figure and summarized as follows:. A common feature associated with all of the concepts that inferred to be involved in the development of animal lineages sequences is the creation of protein recombinations that generate new structures and functions in a new "species". Such protein recombinations must occur in one (or both) of two meiosis settings:
1. The protein recombination first appeared in only one animal in a population.
In such case, the problem is how the chromosome containing a protein recombination to align correctly with a chromosome representing a pre-recombination protein alignment during meiosis.
2. The protein recombination first appeared in more than one animal in a population.
In such case, the problem is how simultaneous mutations occurred among some or all of the population.This blog proposes that the apparent improbable occurrence of either of the foregoing protein recombination conditions, particularly in the assembly of genomes that form common ancestry lineage sequences, is indirectly reflected in the conflict between the simultaneous operation of two or more of the canonical concepts inferred as the controlling processes, as graphically summarized in the following figure.
TRANSPOSONS (Summary) Revised:08-23-15
POLYTOMYS (Summary) Revised:04-29-15
FEATHER DEVELOPMENT (Summary) Revised:11-23-15
SPECIATION (Summary) Revised:12-28-16
CONVERGENCE (Summary) Revised:11-07-16
SISTER SPECIES (Summary) Revised:01-29-16
DEV. GEN. REG. NET. (Summary) Revised:01-04-16
LINEAGE ISOLATION (Summary) Revised:02-16-16
GHOST SPECIES (Summary) Revised:02-28-16
ANAGENESIS/CLADOGENESIS (Summary) Revised:11-18-16
CO-OPTION (Summary) Revised:10-19-16
CLADOGRAM OUTGROUPS (Summary) Revised:01-24-16
BACTERIAL APPEARANCE (Summary) Revised:03-06-16
DERIVED TRAITS (Summary) Revised:03-06-16
LIGAND BINDING (Summary) Revised:03-10-17Revised:12-15-16