• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The science of creationism: where is it?

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You related croc to bird by the shape of bones. I related croc to lizard by the shape of flesh and by the locomotion. Tell me why is your criterion better than mine?

Did you ignore the fact that GENETICS and MOLECULAR analysis also show the fact that crocodylians are more closely related to birds than to lizards? Are whales more closely related to fish? The genetic analysis shows they are related to hippos and other artiodactyls but the shape of their flesh says they should be related to fish. If you have a problem with using genetics to show relatedness among living organisms then you should also have a problem with parental genetic testing (they use the exact same methods).

"My" criterion is better that "yours" because I provided THREE independent areas of study that show the relationship of crocodylians and birds. The best evidence is the GENETIC ANALYSIS that further enforces the idea that birds and crocodiles share a common ancestor. That is the only idea that can reliably explain their relatedness.

So again, if evolution isn't true, what is the reasoning behind God making birds and alligators so closely related?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You don't understand and you never will understand, just like you completley fail to understand anything else we explain.

Trying to explain things to you is like trying to explain Pythagoras theorem to a 3 year old, or how an internal combustion engine works to a hamster. It's just not possible, because of your complete lack of willingness to learn anything that contradicts what you want to believe.

It only shows that you do not understand the stuff.

I can explain any geological knowledge to people of any age and make them "understand".

I make you an offer: name a difficult subject in geology, and I will make you understand it with a few sentences.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did you ignore the fact that GENETICS and MOLECULAR analysis also show the fact that crocodylians are more closely related to birds than to lizards? Are whales more closely related to fish? The genetic analysis shows they are related to hippos and other artiodactyls but the shape of their flesh says they should be related to fish. If you have a problem with using genetics to show relatedness among living organisms then you should also have a problem with parental genetic testing (they use the exact same methods).

"My" criterion is better that "yours" because I provided THREE independent areas of study that show the relationship of crocodylians and birds. The best evidence is the GENETIC ANALYSIS that further enforces the idea that birds and crocodiles share a common ancestor. That is the only idea that can reliably explain their relatedness.

So again, if evolution isn't true, what is the reasoning behind God making birds and alligators so closely related?

OK, please explain to me your genetic argument. How is the DNA (or ?) of a croc MORE similar to that of a bird, than to that of a lizard.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
OK, please explain to me your genetic argument. How is the DNA (or ?) of a croc MORE similar to that of a bird, than to that of a lizard.

There are different views about the relationship and evolution of reptiles and depending on the datasets used different phylogenetic relationships are found. Historically, morphological data has been used most, but more recently DNA or protein sequence data is the preferred source of information for phylogenetic analysis. Unfortunately, different genes evolve at different rates and thus trees derived from different data sets may result in contradictory phylogenetic hypotheses. For example, certain taxa (e.g., teiids) show a significant codon bias coupled with an increased relative rate of evolution of C-mos sequences compared to other squamates. This seems to distort attempts to use C-mos in phylogenetic analyses, both across squamates and within teiids (Harris 2003). Therefore, combined dataset using many sequences and/or morphological characters are usually most reliable.
The trees below have been derived from the combined analysis of mitochondrial protein coding genes and tRNAs.
vertebrates.jpg


Optimal phylogenetic hypothesis for representative lineages of Reptilia using a Bayesian inference approach. For this figure, branch lengths have been calculated using a GTR+gamma model, with a dataset including 11 protein coding genes and 19 tRNAs from mitochondria. Numbers in bold at internodes are divergence time estimates in millions of years before the present. Asterisks designate calibration points from the fossil record (see Benton, 1993; Carroll, 1988). Numbers in italics are nonparametric bootstrapped Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) based on 100 replicates and 200,000 generations (see text). Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) for nodes are underlined (from Rest et al. 2003).
Reptile Phylogeny


The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Janke A, Erpenbeck D, Nilsson M, Arnason U.
Department of Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden.

The complete mitochondrial genomes of two reptiles, the common iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus), were sequenced in order to investigate phylogenetic questions of tetrapod evolution. The addition of the two species allows analysis of reptilian relationships using data sets other than those including only fast-evolving species. The crocodilian mitochondrial genomes seem to have evolved generally at a higher rate than those of other vertebrates. Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship, lending no support to the Haematotherma hypothesis (with birds and mammals representing sister groups).

The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent archosauria (birds and crocodiles)
A Janke and U Arnason
Department of Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden.


The complete mitochondrial genome of the alligator, Alligator mississippiensis, was sequenced. The size of the molecule is 16,642 nucleotides. Previously reported rearrangements of tRNAs in crocodile mitochondrial genomes were confirmed and, relative to mammals, no other deviations of gene order were observed. The analysis of protein-coding genes of the alligator showed an evolutionary rate that is roughly the same as in mammals. Thus, the evolutionary rate in the alligator is faster than that in birds as well as that in cold-blooded vertebrates. This contradicts hypotheses of constant body temperatures or high metabolic rate being correlated with elevated molecular evolutionary rates. It is commonly acknowledged that birds are the closest living relatives to crocodiles. Birds and crocodiles represent the only archosaurian survivors of the mass extinction at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. On the basis of mitochondrial protein- coding genes, the Haemothermia hypothesis, which defines birds and mammals as sister groups and thus challenges the traditional view, could be rejected. Maximum-likelihood branch length data of amino acid sequences suggest that the divergence between the avianand crocodilian lineages took place at approximately equal to 254MYA
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
It only shows that you do not understand the stuff.

I can explain any geological knowledge to people of any age and make them "understand".

I make you an offer: name a difficult subject in geology, and I will make you understand it with a few sentences.

Firstly, I don't see what crocodiles or birds have to do with geology.

Second, how was this formed?

crystal_cave_giants_5.jpg
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Firstly, I don't see what crocodiles or birds have to do with geology.

Second, how was this formed?

crystal_cave_giants_5.jpg

No relation in content. But it could show the difference on the ability of explanation. BananaSlug replied my question with something I do not understand. But I will reply your question with something you can understand.

I do not pretend to know this special case well (never study it). But in principle it is quite simple: These huge crystals are CaSO4 (gypsum). They crystallized from solution just like the way NaCl crystallized from salt water. Only in this case: 1. the space is limited; 2. the concentration was very high; and 3. the environment was very quite. The term for this type of mineral deposit is called "hydrothermal". It does not take much time to crystallize them.

How is my explanation different from the one given by BananaSlug? The difference is very important and is very significant. With my explanation, you are able to keep asking some meaningful questions. To his explanation? I am in shock and am simply lost. What a waste.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are different views about the relationship and evolution of reptiles and depending on the datasets used different phylogenetic relationships are found. Historically, morphological data has been used most, but more recently DNA or protein sequence data is the preferred source of information for phylogenetic analysis. Unfortunately, different genes evolve at different rates and thus trees derived from different data sets may result in contradictory phylogenetic hypotheses. For example, certain taxa (e.g., teiids) show a significant codon bias coupled with an increased relative rate of evolution of C-mos sequences compared to other squamates. This seems to distort attempts to use C-mos in phylogenetic analyses, both across squamates and within teiids (Harris 2003). Therefore, combined dataset using many sequences and/or morphological characters are usually most reliable.
The trees below have been derived from the combined analysis of mitochondrial protein coding genes and tRNAs.

Optimal phylogenetic hypothesis for representative lineages of Reptilia using a Bayesian inference approach. For this figure, branch lengths have been calculated using a GTR+gamma model, with a dataset including 11 protein coding genes and 19 tRNAs from mitochondria. Numbers in bold at internodes are divergence time estimates in millions of years before the present. Asterisks designate calibration points from the fossil record (see Benton, 1993; Carroll, 1988). Numbers in italics are nonparametric bootstrapped Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) based on 100 replicates and 200,000 generations (see text). Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) for nodes are underlined (from Rest et al. 2003).
Reptile Phylogeny


The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Janke A, Erpenbeck D, Nilsson M, Arnason U.
Department of Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden.

The complete mitochondrial genomes of two reptiles, the common iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus), were sequenced in order to investigate phylogenetic questions of tetrapod evolution. The addition of the two species allows analysis of reptilian relationships using data sets other than those including only fast-evolving species. The crocodilian mitochondrial genomes seem to have evolved generally at a higher rate than those of other vertebrates. Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship, lending no support to the Haematotherma hypothesis (with birds and mammals representing sister groups).

The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent archosauria (birds and crocodiles)
A Janke and U Arnason
Department of Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden.


The complete mitochondrial genome of the alligator, Alligator mississippiensis, was sequenced. The size of the molecule is 16,642 nucleotides. Previously reported rearrangements of tRNAs in crocodile mitochondrial genomes were confirmed and, relative to mammals, no other deviations of gene order were observed. The analysis of protein-coding genes of the alligator showed an evolutionary rate that is roughly the same as in mammals. Thus, the evolutionary rate in the alligator is faster than that in birds as well as that in cold-blooded vertebrates. This contradicts hypotheses of constant body temperatures or high metabolic rate being correlated with elevated molecular evolutionary rates. It is commonly acknowledged that birds are the closest living relatives to crocodiles. Birds and crocodiles represent the only archosaurian survivors of the mass extinction at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. On the basis of mitochondrial protein- coding genes, the Haemothermia hypothesis, which defines birds and mammals as sister groups and thus challenges the traditional view, could be rejected. Maximum-likelihood branch length data of amino acid sequences suggest that the divergence between the avianand crocodilian lineages took place at approximately equal to 254MYA

Please wait. I need to think where and what to continue the conversation.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Please wait. I need to think where and what to continue the conversation.

That's okay. If you want any more info feel free to let me know. I'll wait for your response. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are different views about the relationship and evolution of reptiles and depending on the datasets used different phylogenetic relationships are found. Historically, morphological data has been used most, but more recently DNA or protein sequence data is the preferred source of information for phylogenetic analysis. Unfortunately, different genes evolve at different rates and thus trees derived from different data sets may result in contradictory phylogenetic hypotheses. For example, certain taxa (e.g., teiids) show a significant codon bias coupled with an increased relative rate of evolution of C-mos sequences compared to other squamates. This seems to distort attempts to use C-mos in phylogenetic analyses, both across squamates and within teiids (Harris 2003). Therefore, combined dataset using many sequences and/or morphological characters are usually most reliable.

So, you are saying that DNA is not a good indicator to relate animals. Does this support my argument rather than yours?
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, it says the C-mos sequences of the genome has undergone an increased relative rate of evolution in certain reptiles (especially teiids which include tegus, caimen lizards, and whiptails) compared to the rest of the genome. The last sentence says they use combined data from MANY sequences in addition to traditional morphological characters.
If DNA is not a good indicator to relate animals it wouldn't be useful to relate humans either...
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, it says the C-mos sequences of the genome has undergone an increased relative rate of evolution in certain reptiles (especially teiids which include tegus, caimen lizards, and whiptails) compared to the rest of the genome. The last sentence says they use combined data from MANY sequences in addition to traditional morphological characters.
If DNA is not a good indicator to relate animals it wouldn't be useful to relate humans either...

So, how do the data of genome comparison look like among croc, lizard and bird? Do they show any correlation even on a statistical base?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You related croc to bird by the shape of bones. I related croc to lizard by the shape of flesh and by the locomotion. Tell me why is your criterion better than mine?

Because locomotion is a terrible attribute to use for classification. You would put fish with whales and mosasaurs, and flies with herons and bats. Even a "Professor of Geology" like you should see that. Shape of the flesh?? The shape of the flesh is dependent of the shape bones. This argument sounds very much like R.B.'s "great similarity of shape argument," where marsupial rats are more closely related to placental rats than to kangaroos... I hope you are not usung that!?
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So, how do the data of genome comparison look like among croc, lizard and bird? Do they show any correlation even on a statistical base?

That was part of the explanation from my previous post. I provided the links to the papers. I hate that some sites make you pay for the paper but if you can find the email address of one of the researchers they'll be more than happy to send a copy to you!


Warm-Blooded Isochore Structure in Nile Crocodile and Turtle
Sandrine Hughes,* Dominique Zelus,† and Dominique Mouchiroud*

Abstract
The genomes of warm-blooded vertebrates are characterized by a strong heterogeneity in base composition, with
GC-rich and GC-poor isochores. The GC content of sequences, especially in third codon positions, is highly correlated
with that of the isochore they are embedded in. In amphibian and fish genomes, GC-rich isochores are
nearly absent. Thus, it has been proposed that the GC increase in a part of mammalian and avian genomes represents
an adaptation to homeothermy. To test this selective hypothesis, we sequenced marker protein genes in two coldblooded


vertebrates, the Nile crocodile
Crocodylus niloticus (10 genes) and the red-eared slider Trachemys scripta

elegans (6 genes). The analysis of base composition in third codon position of this original data set shows that the

Nile crocodile and the turtle also exhibit GC-rich isochores, which rules out the homeothermy hypothesis. Instead,
we propose that the GC increase results from a mutational bias that took place earlier than the adaptation to
homeothermy in birds and before the turtle/crocodile divergence. Surprisingly, the isochore structure appears very
similar between the red-eared slider and the Nile crocodile than between the chicken and the Nile crocodile. This
point questions the phylogenetic position of turtles as a basal lineage of extant reptiles. We also observed a regular
molecular clock in the Archosauria, which enables us, by using a more extended data set, to confirm Kumar and​



Hedges’s dating of the bird-crocodile split.​

Discussion

As expected, phylogenetic analysis of the 10 presently

sequenced genes from the Nile crocodile strongly


supports the Archosauria, which groups birds and crocodilians

in a sister group with bootstrap values higher
than 85%, except for vdr (59%) and pk (71%). As a
whole, these data definitively rule out the ‘‘Haemothermia’’
hypothesis, which groups birds and mammals in
a sister group (Hedges, Moberg, and Maxon 1990).
For the divergence time between birds and crocodilians,
a recent work has proposed a mean value of 222
6 40 Myr (Kumar and Hedges 1998), in agreement with
the 240-Myr value suggested by fossil analyses (Benton
1990). The new divergence time (215 Myr) that we estimated
on 10 concatenated nuclear coding genes (i.e.,
2.5 more genes than in previous studies) is in accordance
with Kumar’s findings. Analysis of the avian/
crocodilian split, performed on the complete mitochondrial
genome of Alligator mississippiensis, gives a divergence
time of 254 Myr (Janke and Arnason 1997),



close to our estimate for the nuclear genome.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/11/1521.pdf



β-Keratins in crocodiles reveal amino acid homology with avian keratins
Changjiang Ye1, Xiaobing Wu1, Peng Yan1 and George Amato2


Abstract
The DNA sequences encoding β-keratin have been obtained from Marsh Mugger (Crocodylus palustris) and Orinoco Crocodiles (Crocodylus intermedius). Through the deduced amino acid sequence, these proteins are rich in glycine, proline and serine. The central region of the proteins are composed of two beta-folded regions and show a high degree of identity with β-keratins of aves and squamates. This central part is thought to be the site of polymerization to build the framework of β-keratin filaments. It is believed that the β-keratins in reptiles and birds share a common ancestry. Near the C-terminal, these β-keratins contain a peptide rich in glycine-X and glycine-X-X, and the distinctive feature of the region is some 12-amino acid repeats, which are similar to the 13-amino acid repeats in chick scale keratin but absent from avian feather keratin. From our phylogenetic analysis, the β-keratins in crocodile have a closer relationship with avian keratins than the other keratins in reptiles.



So here again we have two separate studies that still show the genetic relatedness of crocodiles and birds.

Again, why would God give crocodiles and birds such a close relationship if evolution is false?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Because locomotion is a terrible attribute to use for classification. You would put fish with whales and mosasaurs, and flies with herons and bats. Even a "Professor of Geology" like you should see that. Shape of the flesh?? The shape of the flesh is dependent of the shape bones. This argument sounds very much like R.B.'s "great similarity of shape argument," where marsupial rats are more closely related to placental rats than to kangaroos... I hope you are not usung that!?

Classification can be developed by using complicate criteria. Paleontologist used bone because it is the only thing available. If someone care to make classification scheme according to living species only, I believe the system could be very different. It will make perfect sense, and will also be practical. Zoologists should try to do that. Unfortunately they are basically controlled by what the paleontologists have developed. This is an example on how bad the education could go by having only one dominant theory.

To a zoologist, tie a croc to a bird, rather than to a lizard is absurd.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
juv sez....Classification can be developed by using complicate criteria. Paleontologist used bone because it is the only thing available. If someone care to make classification scheme according to living species only, I believe the system could be very different. It will make perfect sense, and will also be practical. Zoologists should try to do that. Unfortunately they are basically controlled by what the paleontologists have developed. This is an example on how bad the education could go by having only one dominant theory.

To a zoologist, tie a croc to a bird, rather than to a lizard is absurd. QUOTE//////////


hespera sez... i think we should lump animals by color. shrimp and flamigos, for example. And by the sound they make, like hissing. cockroaches, snakes and cats are all in Superclass Hissovox. (someone know better latin want to improve that?)

the non hissing cocoraches shall be in Melanodorsalis along with the labrador dog and the penguin.

as for the zoologist who thinks it is absurd to say crocs are closer to birds than lizards... maybe a religious fanatic with a mail order degree. i dont think youd find a real one anywhere who doesnt undrstand anatomy and physiclogy well enough to understand.

i didnt get a zoologty degree to ge told this kind of total cra[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]imo.

We have observed that juv wants to turn biology on its head, without taking time first to learn anything about it. "a plant is not a life" ....... good grief.

This is beyond and far below any serious discusison, which leaves nothing but making fun or ignoring it.
 
Upvote 0