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.
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.
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.
Completely wrong. Classification is not restricted to bones, because classification is not based on fossils. It is based on living species, and then applied retroactively to fossil species. That is why there is a tendency to place extinct species in living taxa.
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 TurtleSandrine 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
Hedgess 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 Kumars 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?
If so, please tell me why is croc more related to bird, rather than to lizard. Notice that genetic argument does not apply in this case.
Consider the following taken from the opening paragraph of the article in Wikipedia explaining "Creation science."
"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."So I would think that in order to "provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution" that one would have to marshal scientific evidence to make any kind of a case. Now there are scientists who are creationists. In fact, several creation web sites like to tout the credentials of their scientifically trained members; however, I have yet to find any peer reviewed work by any scientist, creationist or otherwise, whose findings support creationism to the detriment of evolution; to say nothing of any such scientific work that's been specifically aimed at doing so.
So I again ask: where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? As far as I can see this use of "science" is no more meaningful than had they called their enterprise, "Lollipop creationism." which just might be a more accurate label.
You're absolutely right. Ya can't squeeze blood from a turnip.This is like asking a someone who believes the earth is flat to prove it scientifically. It's not gonna happen...
You can if its one of those genetically engineered plasma turnips... after all, they get insulin from E. coli...You're absolutely right. Ya can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
It's not?This is like asking a someone who believes the earth is flat to prove it scientifically. It's not gonna happen...
Whatever are you talking about? Post #304 shows that genetically, birds are closer to crocs and alligators than to skinks and iguanas.
Zoology does not use genetic information to classify animals.
Two studies, looked at two different genome (?), on different animals. How would these two studies support any single issue?
Is there a part of DNA which is common between croc and lizard, but is not common between croc and bird?
Zoology does use genetics to support phylogeny. It is the greatest tool they have!
Google "use of genetics in taxonomy"
Scholarly articles for use of genetics in taxonomy
Parallel genetic algorithm taxonomy - Nowostawski - Cited by 74
of isozyme analysis in fungal taxonomy and genetics - Micales - Cited by 113
Genetic transfer and bacterial taxonomy. - Jones - Cited by 76
Search Results
- Role of Genomic Typing in Taxonomy, Evolutionary Genetics, and ...
However, researchers in various disciplines tend to use different ... concepts used in microbial taxonomy, evolutionary genetics, and epidemiology. ...
cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/547 - Similar
by A van Belkum - 2001 - Cited by 122 - Related articles - All 14 versions- Genetic Codes - NCBI
Apr 7, 2008 ... Central to this effort is careful checking on the taxonomy of each record and ... the genetic code tables shown here use T instead of U. ...
NCBI HomePageTaxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi - Cached - Similar- Intellisophic Genetics Taxonomy - Taxonomy Warehouse - Vocabulary ...
Description: The Genetics Taxonomy covers all aspects of traditional ... Biotechnology, with special emphasis on lab techniques in use in many US high ...
www.[B]taxonomy[/B]warehouse.com/vocabdetails_include.asp?... - Cached - Similar- PLoS Genetics: Exploring Microbial Diversity and Taxonomy Using ...
Published in the November 2008 Issue of PLoS Genetics ..... We compared the use of GAST to assign taxonomy with the use of the top BLAST match (Table 2). ...
www.plosgenetics.org/article/info.../journal.pgen.1000255 - Cached - Similar
by SM Huse - 2008 - Cited by 14 - Related articles - All 7 versions- Venomdoc Forums :: View Forum - Evolution, Genetics & Taxonomy
Post new topic · Venomdoc Forums Forum Index -> Evolution, Genetics & Taxonomy · Mark all topics read. Topics, Replies, Author, Views, Last Post ...
Venomdoc Forums ::... - Cached - Similar- Biochemical genetics and taxonomy in Plumatella emarginata and P ...
caused mainly bythe use of varietal names (for example, see Rogick, 1935). Many such names ..... Taxonomy, interspecific variation and genetic dif- ...
doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1980.tb01208.x - Similar- BioOne Online Journals - Primate Genetics Is Taxonomy a Trivial ...
Primate Genetics Is Taxonomy a Trivial Pursuit? ..... and Wienberg continue to use the name stramineus for those west of the Rio Trombetas. ...
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie - Similar
by AB Rylands - 2007- ON A WING: THE GENETICS AND TAXONOMY OF VACCINIUM SPECIES FROM A ...
genetics and taxonomic status of Vaccinium species. ..... than those who may attempt to make use of it in the identification of the material, yet it is ...
Acta Horticulturae - Similar
by N Vorsa - 1996 - Cited by 6 - Related articles- Trends in Genetics - DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy ...
DNA taxonomy and barcoding use nucleotide sequence data to achieve ... how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics ...
Cell - Page Not Foundgenetics/.../S0168-9525(07)00036-4 - Cached - Similar
by D Rubinoff - 2006 - Cited by 29 - Related articles - All 8 versions- Taxonomy of wheat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The genetic approach to wheat taxonomy (see below)takes the genome ... Anyone wishing to use a botanical name for wheat is best advised to follow an ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_of_wheat - Cached - Similar
Searches related to: use of genetics in taxonomyescherichia coli taxonomymicrobial taxonomy
There are many other studies out there that support the relationship of birds and crocodylians.
A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization
Xueyan Shan1, David A Ray2, John A Bunge3 and Daniel G Peterson*1,4
AbstractBackground: Crocodilians (Order Crocodylia) are an ancient vertebrate group of tremendous ecological,
social, and evolutionary importance. They are the only extant reptilian members of Archosauria, a
monophyletic group that also includes birds, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs. Consequently, crocodilian genomes
represent a gateway through which the molecular evolution of avian lineages can be explored. To facilitate
comparative genomics within Crocodylia and between crocodilians and other archosaurs, we have
constructed a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library for the Australian saltwater crocodile, Crocodylus
porosus. This is the first BAC library for a crocodile and only the second BAC resource for a crocodilian.
Results: The C. porosus BAC library consists of 101,760 individually archived clones stored in 384-well
microtiter plates. NotI digestion of random clones indicates an average insert size of 102 kb. Based on a
genome size estimate of 2778 Mb, the library affords 3.7 fold (3.7×) coverage of the C. porosus genome. To
investigate the utility of the library in studying sequence distribution, probes derived from CR1a and CR1b,
two crocodilian CR1-like retrotransposon subfamilies, were hybridized to C. porosus macroarrays. The results
indicate that there are a minimum of 20,000 CR1a/b elements in C. porosus and that their distribution
throughout the genome is decidedly non-random. To demonstrate the utility of the library in gene isolation,
we probed the C. porosus macroarrays with an overgo designed from a C-mos (oocyte maturation factor) partial
cDNA. A BAC containing C-mos was identified and the C-mos locus was sequenced. Nucleotide and amino acid
sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals
greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C.
porosus and squamates (green anole).
Conclusion: We have demonstrated the utility of the Crocodylus porosus BAC library as a tool in genomics
research. The BAC library should expedite complete genome sequencing of C. porosus and facilitate detailed
analysis of genome evolution within Crocodylia and between crocodilians and diverse amniote lineages
including birds, mammals, and other non-avian reptiles.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2164-10-S2-S9.pdf
I have an account at biomedcentral if you want me to provide links to more papers. So... why would God make birds and crocodiles so closely related if evolution wasn't true? Or are you still going to fiddle around the question?
Crocodiles and birds have a more recent common ancestor than archosaurs and lepidosaurs (tuataras, lizards, and snakes). Any DNA that crocodiles and lizards share is also shared by birds.
Zoology does use genetics to support phylogeny. It is the greatest tool they have!
Can't help on this one: This demonstrates one of the incurable (a.k.a. normal) problem of undergraduate, or even some graduate students:
Instead of search: use of genetics on taxonomy on this question (many hits), one should search the use of taxonomy on genetics (may be no hit).
The post shows that genetically birds and crocs are more similar to each other than either is to lizards. Is that clear now?I said the genetic argument does not apply according to your argument. You also changed the nature of the topic. We are looking at the croc, not at the bird. You are running away from the debate. Zoology does not use genetic information to classify animals.
More word games.Can't help on this one: This demonstrates one of the incurable (a.k.a. normal) problem of undergraduate, or even some graduate students:
Instead of search: use of genetics on taxonomy on this question (many hits), one should search the use of taxonomy on genetics (may be no hit).
Yes this is not true.I don't think you said this based on solid understanding. Because I smell big problem on it. I guess you can see the problem too.
Without much knowledge, I highly suspect that there are some DNA shared between croc and lizard, but are not shared by bird. Can you positively say this is not true.
I don't think you said this based on solid understanding. Because I smell big problem on it. I guess you can see the problem too.
Without much knowledge, I highly suspect that there are some DNA shared between croc and lizard, but are not shared by bird. Can you positively say this is not true.
Why would you use a search term that doesn't match what you're looking for? (But what do I know, I'm just a normal undergraduateCan't help on this one: This demonstrates one of the incurable (a.k.a. normal) problem of undergraduate, or even some graduate students:
Instead of search: use of genetics on taxonomy on this question (many hits), one should search the use of taxonomy on genetics (may be no hit).
PNAS said:Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator
Abstract
Astraptes fulgerator, first described in 1775, is a common and widely distributed neotropical skipper butterfly (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). We combine 25 years of natural history observations in northwestern Costa Rica with morphological study and DNA barcoding of museum specimens to show that A. fulgerator is a complex of at least 10 species in this region. Largely sympatric, these taxa have mostly different caterpillar food plants, mostly distinctive caterpillars, and somewhat different ecosystem preferences but only subtly differing adults with no genitalic divergence. Our results add to the evidence that cryptic species are prevalent in tropical regions, a critical issue in efforts to document global species richness. They also illustrate the value of DNA barcoding, especially when coupled with traditional taxonomic tools, in disclosing hidden diversity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?