Of Crocodiles, Snakes and Birds

[UTEOTW]

Bob asked for a new thread, so here it is.

Bob originally posted the following.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819631&postcount=5

Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Take very clear note of the claim that Bob is making. Bob says that science says that two reptiles, in this case a snake and a crocodile, should genetically test as being more closely related than a reptile and a bird, in this case a crocodile and a chicken. He then presents data that says that the crocodile and the bird genetically tested as being the most closely related pair of the three.

I made two responses.

 

[UTEOTW]

The first response.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819809&postcount=13

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism.

Another strawman fallacy from Bob. But in this case, I'd bet that it is not his fault. He has been fooled.

The deception of YEism can be subtle at times but it is pervasive.

Oh it sounds so good. Who would not expect that two reptiles should be more closely related that one of the reptiles to a bird?

But if you were to go and ask your neighborhood zoologists, he would have correctly predicted the result.

Reptiles have different groups, but we are concerned about the diapsid reptiles. The fossil record shows that the diapsids branched into two more groups, the lepidosaurs and the archosaurs.

The lepidosaurs evolved into the lizards and snakes.

The archosaurs evolved into the dinosaurs, the crocodiles and the flying reptiles.

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

Therefore, according to the fossil record, birds and crocodiles share a much more recent common ancestor than do crocodiles and snakes.

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

Therefore, contrary to the assertion of the last sentence of your quote, this is exactly the result predicted by evolution.

You have just provided a strong piece of confirming data for evolution.

Thanks!

Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Another strawman.

Evolution would say that the frogs share a much more distant common ancestor than any two mammals. Therefore you would expect them to have more genetic diversity.

Your data here sounds convincing to the lay person because it is common sense. But in this case, common sense is at odds with the actual data. In the light of reality, your data confirms, not refutes, evolution.

And the second.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=820304&postcount=15

Bob

Why did you not use the quote notation on posts number 5 & 6 on the previous page?

You copied word for word from here.

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm

This is called plagiarism. It is both very bad form, unethical and could get the BB sued. Or was the little "Times Supplement" thrown in at the end supposed to be some weak attempt at a citation? Supplement to what? Date? Author? Page number?

And even that curious blurb was missing from the second post.

Besides, since the posts were nothing but strawman arguments that were very easily refuted, you probably don't want your name associated with having come up with them.

Since I brought it up, can you respond FACTUALLY to my responses to those passages? Mainly how the claim was that these findings contradict what science would predict when in fact they confirm what science would predict

.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob asked for the thread and he has it.

He made the claim that evolution predicts that a crocodile and a snake should be genetically closer than either are to a chicken. He then produces genetic testing data that shows a crocodile to be more closely related to chicken than to a snake.

I produced the logic and a link that if followed has a very long list of references that shows that evolution would actually predict that the crocodile and the chicken would be the most closely related of the three because they both are from the archosaur branch of reptiles. Snakes are from a different branch that split away earlier.

So Bob has two choices.

The first is that he can show his own reference to be incorrect.

The second is that he can try to show that science does not really say that both crocodiles and birds are from the archosaur branch of reptiles.

I predict that he will go for option three. Option three would be to use a red herring fallacy where Bob tries to show that Bob does not think that birds have an ancestor in the archosaurs. Now this approach would be nothing but a fallacy of distraction because he would not be telling us what scientists say but what Bob says. Whether they are even right about the origin of birds is not even an issue. Even if they are wrong, they still say that birds evolved from archosaurs and that would be the prediction that they would make. Therefore the genetic testing is a confirmation of that prediction even if Bob tries to distract you by saying that the prediction is incorrect.

BTW, I don't know what happened at the end there to put the "." in quote notation. Something funny is going on with the formatting. I fixed just about everything else but that won't go away.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You are the one that plagiarized the reptile/bird genetic data. You introduced it into the discussion.

You are the one who asked for a new thread in which to discuss this.

Well, you have your thread.

Where is the discussion?

 

[UTEOTW]

You still have a chance to prove yourself in a subject of your own choosing.

Or are you only comfortable in your fictional and discredited script?

But thanks once again for posting data supportive of evolution. It helps my case AND shows that you lack even basic understanding of the subject which you criticize.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the full quote AS WE SAW it on that LINK UTEOTW gave in the OP--

TIMES Higher Education Supplement
Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Times Higher Education Supplement
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...31&postcount=5

Notice this is not BOB claiming something - this is actually the Times Higher Educational Supplement -- but into each of UTEOTW's posts "a little historic revisionism must fall"

But of course - this is one of UTEOTW's more honest attempts to show facts - so I am trying not to complain too much about it.

 

[BobRyan]

Then the Times Supplement added this --

as we saw on that same thread --

Times:
Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.
Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in UTEOTW's mind this is BOB saying something - not the Times Higher Educational Supplement??

Take very clear note of the claim that Bob is making. Bob says that science says that

Question for the reader - how often CAN you trust UTEOTW to actually be totally intellectually honest - instead of totally misleading?

The source for the facts presented in the previous two posts - is the TIMES - not me. Their writer the author - not Bob!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Come on Bob address the issue. Don't go down your normal path of obfuscation.

You posted that genetic testing showed crocodiles to be more closely related to birds than to snakes and said that it was a problem for evolution as it would predict that crocodiles should be more closely related to their fellow reptiles.

I then showed that this was only your lack of understanding speaking. That crocodiles and birds are both from the archosaur branch of reptiles according to scientists and should therefore be expected to test as being genetically more similar.

You, in your ignorance of evolution, posted material supportive of evolutionary theory and not against it as you claimed.

You only choices here are to prove your own post incorrect or to prove that science does not really think that birds evolved out of the archosaurs.

What you have done is merely to handwave and hope we don't notice that you did not address the substance.

But that is your pattern.

 

[Chemnitz]

I really think people take genetic correlation too far, just because there is a correlation in the code does not mean that species are descendant from one or the other or even have a common ancestor. There are too many factors to take into consideration such as transference caused by viruses, a phenonenon which has been documented and even recreated in the lab. There is also the fact that we are working with a code that has only 4 letters, it only makes sense that there will be duplication because there is a finite number ways these 4 bases can be combined.

To take the ID route the commonality can be explained by the species sharing a designer. Similar instances of commonality have appeared in engineering and in programing, where the designer takes something they know that works and place it in a completely seperate and unrelated product.

 

[mman]

Come on Bob address the issue. Don't go down your normal path of obfuscation.

You posted that genetic testing showed crocodiles to be more closely related to birds than to snakes and said that it was a problem for evolution as it would predict that crocodiles should be more closely related to their fellow reptiles.

I then showed that this was only your lack of understanding speaking. That crocodiles and birds are both from the archosaur branch of reptiles according to scientists and should therefore be expected to test as being genetically more similar.

You, in your ignorance of evolution, posted material supportive of evolutionary theory and not against it as you claimed.

You only choices here are to prove your own post incorrect or to prove that science does not really think that birds evolved out of the archosaurs.

What you have done is merely to handwave and hope we don't notice that you did not address the substance.

But that is your pattern.

Birds couldn't have evolved from archosaurs because birds lungs function uniquely. To "evolve" to a bird's lung, a hole in the bottom of the lung would be needed. This would present a "debilitating condition" and not a selective advantage. Death—to put it bluntly—is not a good survival mechanism!

This info above is from Part 2: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/471

For Part 1 go to: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=473

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, except that the particular archosaurs from which birds evolved were the theropod dinosaurs. And we have a fossil record showing the theropod dinsaurs having lungs similar to those of modern birds aand very much like those of early birds. (Yes, early birds did not posses the lungs like what modern birds have.) So we have a series of transitionals showing how the avian lung evolved.

So not impossible.

Reptiles and birds possess septate lungs rather than the alveolar-style lungs of mammals. The morphology of the unmodified, bellowslike septate lung restricts the maximum rates of respiratory gas exchange. Among taxa possessing septate lungs, only the modified avian flow-through lung is capable of the oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange rates that are typical of active endotherms. Paleontological and neontological evidence indicates that theropod dinosaurs possessed unmodified, bellowslike septate lungs that were ventilated with a crocodilelike hepatic-piston diaphragm. The earliest birds (Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines) also possessed unmodified septate lungs but lacked a hepatic-piston diaphragm mechanism. These data are consistent with an ectothermic status for theropod dinosaurs and early birds.

John A. Ruben, Terry D. Jones, * Nicholas R. Geist, W. Jaap Hillenius,
Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science 14 November 1997, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1267 - 1270

Birds are unique among living vertebrates in possessing pneumaticity
of the postcranial skeleton, with invasion of bone by the
pulmonary air-sac system1–4. The avian respiratory system
includes high-compliance air sacs that ventilate a dorsally fixed,
non-expanding parabronchial lung2,3,5,6. Caudally positioned
abdominal and thoracic air sacs are critical components of the
avian aspiration pump, facilitating flow-through ventilation of the
lung and near-constant airflow during both inspiration and
expiration, highlighting a design optimized for efficient gas
exchange2,5–8. Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity has also been
reported in numerous extinct archosaurs including non-avian
theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx9–12. However, the relationship
between osseous pneumaticity and the evolution of the avian
respiratory apparatus has long remained ambiguous. Here we
report, on the basis of a comparative analysis of region-specific
pneumaticity with extant birds, evidence for cervical and abdominal
air-sac systems in non-avian theropods, along with thoracic
skeletal prerequisites of an avian-style aspiration pump. The early
acquisition of this system among theropods is demonstrated by
examination of an exceptional new specimen of Majungatholus
atopus, documenting these features in a taxon only distantly
related to birds. Taken together, these specializations imply the
existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods,
indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is
not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod
characteristic.

Patrick M. O’Connor1 & Leon P. A. M. Claessens, Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs,
2005 Nature Publishing Group

 

[mman]

Well, except that the particular archosaurs from which birds evolved were the theropod dinosaurs. And we have a fossil record showing the theropod dinsaurs having lungs similar to those of modern birds aand very much like those of early birds. (Yes, early birds did not posses the lungs like what modern birds have.) So we have a series of transitionals showing how the avian lung evolved.

So not impossible.



John A. Ruben, Terry D. Jones, * Nicholas R. Geist, W. Jaap Hillenius,
Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science 14 November 1997, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1267 - 1270




Patrick M. O’Connor1 & Leon P. A. M. Claessens, Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs,
2005 Nature Publishing Group

You have "transitionals"??? Alert the presses! Too bad you can find any true transitionals. Where is the half scale/half feather? There should be many, many of these types of transitions found as fossils as predicted, but they AREN'T.

The renowned geologist of England, T.N. George, even stated that “there is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is
outpacing integration”. The transitional forms simply are not there, as the evidence clearly indicates.​

 

[UTEOTW]

Why would I need to alert the press about transitionals? I just gave you two published papers on transitionals showing the evolution of the lungs which you said it was impossible to evolve.

The feather issue has also been attacked from a few different angles.

First off, we now understand genetically how to make feathers. So that is one angle.

But let's look at the another. You wanted fossils.

As we saw in the lungs, the birds came out of the theropod brnach of dinosaurs. Now there are quite a few feathered dinosaurs in various stages of evolution in this group. Even Tyrannosaur fossils have been found with feathers.

Early feathers were nothing more than a downy covering. Sinosauropteryx is a good example of a dinosaur covered in such feathers.

Moving along, Caudipteryx is an example of more fully developed feathers. This dinosaur was covered in feathers including a tail of symetrical feathers very similar to that of birds.

For brevity, I'll give one final example. Microraptor is a dinosaur with fully developed, assymetric flight feathers on all four limbs!

So fossil feathers in various stages of evolution are represented in the fossil record.

This is following a typical YE pattern. The claim is made that something is impossible or that something fails to exist. When evidence is offered that counters that claim, a new claim pops up. When that one is shown to be false, a new one appears. It never seems to dawn that perhaps scientists are really on to something.

You might also wish to examine your quote more closely.

there is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration

I think that if you reread the quote you will see that it is talking about the fossil record being "unmanageably rich" and that the new discoveries are coming in faster than they know what to do with them. Quite the opposite of a lack of transitionals. And that was over 40 years ago!

 

[BobRyan]

Come on Bob address the issue. Don't go down your normal path of obfuscation.

You posted that genetic testing showed crocodiles to be more closely related to birds than to snakes and said that it was a problem for evolution as it would predict that crocodiles should be more closely related to their fellow reptiles.

I then showed that this was only your lack of understanding speaking.

AS the link in the OP post shows AND as the two posts I just gave SHOW - The POST you are whining about is one where I SAID NOTHING!!

I quoted the Times Higher Education Supplement and NOTHING MORE!!

You then "Rant" about how the writer of that post does not know anything at all -- compared to you.

How sad that once again your factless - gloss-over of "DETAIL" debunks your wild slanderous claims (in this case claims against the Times Higher Education Supplement authors)

 

[UTEOTW]

That is your answer!

You just posted it and didn't write it.

Wow! I think this may be as close as I have seen to you withdrawing a statement.

Let's get this with no ambiguity.

You, BobRyan, copied this material word for word, without quote notation and without a proper citation and without even the "Times Supplement" blurb in subsequent posts, and now you disavow what you posted. You no longer think that you should have posted the genetic stuff.

Am I getting this right?

So why did you post it? Were you fooled by a YEist?

 

[UTEOTW]

So, do you have nothing else to say than that you posted false information because you were fooled by a YEist? No interest in defending what you posted to us as fact?

So you withdraw your claim that evolution says that a crocodile should be genetically closer to a snake than to a bird?

I am getting this right? You no longer claim what you posted.

Because if not, then this topic still has "life" as you put it.

 

[UTEOTW]

I suppose that you plan to continue to run around talking about how I am running from topics on which I have posted dozens of times while you will continue to give us an object lesson in avoidance and running on a subject of your own choosing.

 

[BobRyan]

AS the link in the OP post shows AND as the two posts I just gave SHOW - The POST you are whining about is one where I SAID NOTHING!!

The TWO posts then REPOSTED HERE for ALL to read on THIS thread as WELL!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=828142#post828142

I quoted the Times Higher Education Supplement and NOTHING MORE!!

You then "Rant" about how the writer of that post does not know anything at all -- compared to you.

How sad that once again your factless - gloss-over of "DETAIL" debunks your wild slanderous claims (in this case claims against the Times Higher Education Supplement authors)

Your wild rantings against the Times Higher Educational Supplement claiming that they know nothing about evolutionism as compared to you - falls on its own.

Why in the world do you think I am needed to help it fall?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Why are you not man enough to own up to your own mistake here?

You know that you posted false information. It is obvious because of the way you are trying to shift blame to your lying YE source that fooled you yet again.

The fact of the matter is, however, that you are the one who brought the material to this thread.

You are the one who knows so little about evolution that you could not spot such a simple and obvious mistake.

You are the one who posted false information here as if it were the truth.

How can you pretend to be so confident that evolution is not true when you do not even understand the basics of what it says?

How can you pretend to be able to judge which arguments are good and which are bad when you do not even understand the basic principles of what you criticize?

How can we expect you to give us any factual information when you lack the basic understanding needed to sort the truth from the lies?

And, BTW, how does it feel to be repeatedly lied to and fooled by YE sources?