a reply to: Astyanax
I've written it and so it is said, and I now expand:
While genes are fascinating, the popular understanding of genes as of today in public schooled American folk tends to be spinned just a little bit out
of reality. It doesn't take much to miss the point.
Life forms are made of meat, or wood, or blob.
If we zoom in, they're made of coal and water.
If we zoom out but not too much, the coal and water are organized in specific blobs, and some are genes.
Differing from other life forms' genes in some ways and similar in chemical composition, resembling sibling's in more ways than cousins', and even
more ways than other types of creatures'.
Therefore genetic analysis will provide insight as to whether individuals are related, and whether two are related in a closer sense than a third,
with a degree of precision reasonable in the case of a parent-offspring analysis, less than conclusive in a sibling analysis and way impractical in a
cousin analysis. Ask your local lab to tell which two of three blood samples are cousins, you'll see.
To clarify: a coconut tree has genes, like us. An analysis will reveal that the coconut's genes while similar in nature aren't ordered exactly in the
same way, and experience will allow the geneticist to identify a coconut's entire genome as being a coconut's and a human's a being that based on the
structure of the genes' grouping and general architecture.
Now two coconuts will have genomes so strikingly similar that to know which is which, differences are sought in peculiar narrow and variable corners,
which not the entire structure is (variable, assuming viability of the procreature).
A group of life forms able to procreate with others of said group is named a species.
Among a species, say cocos nucifera, individuals will bear more similarity to their immediate relatives in general, but not always: sometimes are born
a greener one and a hairier one.
In the case where a subgroup of cocos nucifera, say individuals found on the American continent, have specific characteristics shared with another
subgroup of the same species found elsewhere, as the article depicts, it is somewhat sensible to suppose that they may be related more directly then
both subgroups would be related to members of their species not sharing those specific characteristics.
This is already speculation because not all down syndrome, or dwarf, or different kids are brothers and sisters or come from the same island, but
let's roll with the premise, and suppose all redheads originated in Scotland, to keep with the human comparison.
This relation does not say which of the two aforementioned locations their specificity originates from in any scientific way because unlike Scots,
cocos nucifera do not communicate their history with us, which allows us to say American redheads have Scottish ancestors instead of the contrary, but
not where the first green coconut bloomed even if more green coconuts are borne by cocos nucifera in Haiti for instance, as there could very well be
more redheads in America at some point too.
It does however indicate the possibility that these trees may have been planted for their nutritive and crafty qualities by people who brought seeds
as luggage/food/floaters/rope reserve/& c. either to or from America.
Before Columbus, who enjoyed cocos nucifera's juicy gifts as per his diary but did not plant any.
As a side note, I do insist that other possibilities include:
. Maybe the origin of species is other species, some of which evolved into cocos nucifera independently on several instances and locations and
coconuts were or weren't transported by wind or boat or swallow. This seems unlikely to me because genetic variations through generations include both
albinos and two headed people but not different species as far as experience goes: stages intermediary to the amoeba-people theory aren't viable at
all as per their theoretical genetic structure, and besides it just doesn't make sense: time doesn't work that way and life wasn't here for as long as
some public schools teach, and even then.
. Maybe the origin of species is other species, some of which evolved into cocos nucifera in only one instance (first evolving into ferns or orchids
or mango trees through waiting a lot) and were transported into a coconutless America as would have been cows, grain, people, and anything able to
reproduce with anything from beyond oceans.
. Maybe edible fruit and food in general is a corollary of human life, and botanically inclined people do carry seeds they find interesting only to
find existing genetically compatible fruit and people on the other side of oceans.
. & c. including Maybe the origin of species is other species, and people and coconuts evolved together from amoeba, like in that music video from
Norman Cook aka fatboy slim called "right here, right now", but I think it was photoshopped.
Spacetime is a beautiful world, and planting seeds of fruits of trees with appreciated specificity, while it is substantially more likely to yield
similarly appreciable fruit in the future, will not, even if one waits a lot, produce a different type of tree, nor a platypus, in my opinion.
Thank you for your attention