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 int othe 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 comon 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.
