which is more parsimonious?
the horse and the zebra are more closely related than either is to the chicken, or the chicken and the horse are more closely related than either is to the zebra ?
horse and zebra ?
To determine which statement is more parsimonious, we need to assess the simplicity and fewest assumptions required. In this case, we have two options to consider:
Option 1: "The horse and the zebra are more closely related than either is to the chicken."
Option 2: "The chicken and the horse are more closely related than either is to the zebra."
To evaluate these statements, we can think about the most likely scenario based on what we know about the evolutionary relationships between these animals.
Horses and zebras are both part of the equine family, while chickens belong to the bird family. Evolutionarily, horses and zebras share a closer common ancestor than either does with chickens. This makes Option 1 more parsimonious because it requires fewer assumptions. It aligns with the concept of common ancestry and shared evolutionary history.
In contrast, Option 2 would require assuming a closer relationship between horses/chickens while disregarding the equine family's close relationship with zebras.
Therefore, based on the principle of parsimony and evolutionary biology, we can conclude that the statement "The horse and the zebra are more closely related than either is to the chicken" is more parsimonious.