I occasionally read pop-culture articles about, e.g. the discovery of giraffe subspecies, and think about how I'd like to know more about both the human-focused taxonomy side and the evo bio speciation side, but I don't know where to start.
I occasionally read pop-culture articles about, e.g. the discovery of giraffe subspecies, and think about how I'd like to know more about both the human-focused taxonomy side and the evo bio speciation side, but I don't know where to start.
The statistics really only ever amount to Occam’s Razor, I. e. fewer differences in the genome means closer relationship.
Edit: actually free full-text link: http://bioinformatics.bio.uu.nl/pdf/Ciccarelli.s06-311.pdf
In any case, the process consists of basically two steps:
“Align” the DNA of all the species you have sequenced. That’s done using algorithms such as smith-waterman, which minimize the number of edits needed to go from one species’ version of a gene to another.
That number defines a metric that measures all the distances between the species. So, Orang-Utan to Homo Sapiens may be, say, “450”, while Homo Sapiens to Ficus Benjamini is, say “12321”.
(The difference may also be measured on the level of protein sequences. The process is basically the same, only that edits may be assigned different distance scores, because some result in more functional differences, while others are functionally “silent”. Evolutionary pressure would make the first rarer than the latter)
The metric is unitless (I. e. It doesn’t allow translation into, say, “years since species diverged”. But it should fulfill the triangle equality).
Once you have a (triangle) matrix with all the difference, all that’s needed to reconstruct a binary tree that maximizes plausibility, I. E. minimizes the sum of difference at each branching point.
It's a little dated (the first edition came out in 2004!) but to be honest, if you're interested in a "human-focused" intro and how the concepts fit together, things haven't really changed that much.
And so I'm real reluctant to read what he has to say about other fields, because I've got to assume it's all that bad.
You can see the original errata here:
http://errata.wikidot.com/0767908171
I leave it to your judgement whether this makes you "really, really, really loathe" the author :-) Note the book had 20 pages of just bibliography.
You, dmd, are not going to do anything with the knowledge gleaned from those books, except possibly one of two things: Peruse further study, or inspire others (usually children) to be interested in the field. The book opens up the field, the basic concepts of the field, and a bit of history of the field to you. You now have the tools to go off and either learn more or inspire others. You can even get into conversations and debates with those well-versed in the field.
The book is a gateway into a field, not a path to follow in the field.
I have not yet read _The Vital Question_ but I have read his previous books and I highly, highly recommend:
_Power, Sex, Suicide_ _Oxygen_
If I had to pick just one, it would be PSS.