Question

exit ticket (dok 3)
in your own words, explain why dna evidence is considered the most compelling (strongest) evidence for common ancestry when compared to structural evidence (like comparing bones).

• explain your reasoning here):

Explanation:

DNA is inherited from ancestors, so shared DNA sequences directly reflect genetic relatedness. Structural evidence (bones) can be similar due to convergent evolution (adapting to same environment, not common ancestry). DNA changes slowly over generations, preserving ancestral genetic info. It provides precise, quantifiable matches at the molecular level, while structural traits can be ambiguous (e.g., similar bones may have different genetic origins or vice versa). So DNA is more reliable for tracing common ancestry as it’s a direct record of genetic heritage, less prone to non - ancestral - related similarities.

Answer:

DNA evidence is the most compelling for common ancestry because DNA is inherited from ancestors, so shared DNA sequences directly reflect genetic relatedness. Structural evidence (like bones) can be similar due to convergent evolution (adapting to the same environment, not common ancestry). DNA changes slowly over generations, preserving ancestral genetic information. It provides precise, quantifiable molecular - level matches, while structural traits can be ambiguous (e.g., similar bones may have different genetic origins). Thus, DNA is a more reliable direct record of genetic heritage for tracing common ancestry.