Uncommon ancestry

[npetreley]

From Neo-Darwinism, time to reconsider

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

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.

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.

 

[chickenman]

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

ahahaha, really?

the biologists are all wrong, they should have checked with the internet before they claimed that DNA analysis confirms NDT

i'll be back

 

[chickenman]

well, here we go, point number one

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

go here npeterly, its ncbi's taxonomy browser

http://www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=8457&lvl=3

the results they found actually confirm NDT. It would be expected that members of aves and Crocodylidae would have higher homology than aves/squamata or Crocodylidae/squamata (snakes are members of squamata) because aves and crocodylidae are separated by only one node, as opposed to two in the case of a/s or c/s

oh well, better luck next time npeterly

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.

I don't know why they think this, my professors constantly remind us that complexity isn't just how much DNA an organism has. So this is just a bad strawman. NDT doesn't predict anything about the amount of DNA

 

[WinAce]

"Open mouth, insert foot". Chickens and crocodiles sharing more DNA than crocodiles and snakes, and the theory says chickens and crocodiles are more related. This disproves the theory. Whoops!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman

the results they found actually confirm NDT. It would be expected that members of aves and Crocodylidae would have higher homology than aves/squamata or Crocodylidae/squamata (snakes are members of squamata) because aves and crocodylidae are separated by only one node, as opposed to two in the case of a/s or c/s

Congratulations! You proved that when your predictions are proven false, all you have to do to make them true is rearrange the taxonomy. Thus once again, it is illustrated clearly that evolution cannot possibly be falsified, because any falsification simply gets worked back into the theory.

In short, you simply can't disprove imagination.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Uhh.. I think you might be missing something there, Nick.

The closer relationship between the aves and the Crocodiles than between the Crocodiles & Snakes was known from the theory prior to these genetic studies, if I'm not mistaken.. Perhaps because it seems counterintuitive to you, you have a hard time getting that. But scientists have to deal with some things that are counterintuitive - so its not as big a challenge for them.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Reptile" is a layman's term and tt DOES NOT DENOTE RELATIONSHIP. Snakes are very distantly related to crocodiles. Birds are actually rather closely related to crocodiles. Crocodiles and birds both belong to a group of creatures called archosaurs - which also include dinosaurs, pterosaurs and thecodonts. Crocodiles and birds share many features such as 4 chambered hearts and demal armor called scutes - which with a single mutation can become feather like structures. If this so called study included turtles (another reptile), it would demonstrate that they are even more distantly related to crocs then snakes are. Maybe include lizards, they should prove to be very closely related to snakes, especially the monitor lizards.
Nick, I normally do not respond to your garbage but this time I just had to. If anything, this study makes a clear case FOR EVOLUTION.

p.s. Have you ever heard of cladistics?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Quote:
"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."

Where do you get this nonsense from anyways?
Most people would look at a plant and say that is less complex then a human. However many plants have hundreds of chromosomes, some even have chromosomes numbering in the thousands. Tomatoes and rice along with many other plants have much more DNA then a human. Salamanders have 100 times more DNA then people. SO what? Chromosome number and the amount of DNA has NOTHING to do with complexity, and nobody even claimed that it does.

Another straw man from Nick goes up in flames, I think your hair got singed that time.

Nick, you are always good for a laugh. Thanks man

 

[Morat]

  I don't see Nick coming back anytime soon. Rather ironically, I flat out asked him (I think, it might have been someone else) whether his common designer 'theory' would consider closest between the three: Birds, turtles and crocodiles.

   Imagine my delight in seeing him pop up here with the very same notion. Only, of course, wrong.