The article is filled with errors and improper implications:
The researcher implies that it's surprising that sea urchins are genetically closer to humans than fruit flies. Why this would be a surprise baffles me. They are more closely related to us, so we should expect them to have more in common with us genetically. It may or may not be surprising that they are 70% similar, but it should not be surprising that they are more than 40% similar.
The reporter says that members of the Chordata phylum have backbones. Not all chordata have backbones.
The reporter says that this type of sea urchin is "the first-ever chordate to be sequenced". Several members of this phylum have already had their genome sequenced, including humans.
I suspect that there are less obvious errors as well.
I noticed the last one, Methos. I wondered about how a site named Live Science could make such an obvious mistake. The site contradicted itself. I don't know a great deal about science, but that really doesn't take any science knowledge, just a working knowldge of English.
They belong to the phylum Echinodermata, which includes starfish and sea cucumbers, whereas humans belong to the phylum Chordata , or all animals with backbones. Both the echinoderms and chordates belong to a larger group called the deuterostomes.
Analysis of the sea urchin genome— the first-ever chordate to be sequenced—
Posts: 17183 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Addendum to the last point, not only aren't they the first chordates, they aren't chordates at all, as the article accurately says in the bit DG excerpted. Perhaps they are the first echinoderms to have their genomes sequenced?
DG - I'm often disappointed with science coverage, but it seems this article has more of a problem with basic logic than the scientific details.
