Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dinobird: Practically anything, no matter how false or ridiculous, is given serious attention in the science press as long as it appears to support Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Archaeopteryx lithographica, replica of London specimen, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Germany - 20100925.jpg
Replica of the London specimen/H. Zell

In “Science stunner! ‘Missing link’ for 150 years and now it isn’t?” ( World News Daily, , July 28, 2011) Bob Unruh puts his finger on the key point about an otherwise routine reclassification ofa fossil from bird to dinosaur: “Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built”:

The report says the latest discovery suggests the assumption that Archaeopteryx is “the evolutionary link between the two [birds and dinosaurs]” may need reconsideration.

A legitimate debate. That said, this fossil was purchased, not found. Plus the report author admits the hypothesis that knocked the dinobird from its perch is only “weakly supported” by data. So how sure are we? Anyone remember “Feathers for T. Rex”? Oh wait, that scam fell down the memory hole, so we are not allowed to remember. Which is a problem.

Unruh grasps the central point when he asks,

But what about the century-plus that Archaeopteryx was considered “the ideal ‘missing link’ with which to demonstrate evolution from non-avian dinosaurs to birds”?

What about it? It falls into the same memory hole as T. Rex’s feathers, that’s what. We’re all supposed to dumbly worship and believe at the temples of Darwinism (museums) and pay for its sacred texts to be force on students in school. We are supposed to regard as experts Darwinists, who are routinely the marks for Holy Icon scams. And Archaeopteryx was only ever important as a Most Holy Icon of Evolution. Otherwise, it is just a beautifully preserved fossil from time out of mind.

Who knows what will become of the dinobird, real or imagined? Practically anything, no matter how false or ridiculous, is given serious attention in the science press as long as it appears to support Darwinism. No one working there considers (or is allowed to consider?) the cumulative effect of repeated frauds, failures, and offenses to common sense.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
This is starting to remind me of "Fletch" playing a jet mechanic:
It's all ball bearings dinosaurs.
We are all just modified dinosaurs, who are just modified reptiles, which are just modified amphibians, which are just modified fish, blah, blah, blah. We are all just modified prokaryotes. Case closed. Thank you. Nothing to see here. Please move along.Joseph
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
I must admit I'm confused about all this. As I see it, life has a very long and complicated history, with countless bit players, where nearly all historical lineages died out before today. And I see an effort to use what data we can collect to reconstruct this history as well as we can. And this is an iterative process - each reconstruction suggests a different view of the data, which suggests different ways to seek and collect data, which in turn leads to different views, endlessly. How science always works. I think there is a qualitative difference between whether or not there IS a "tree of life" and common ancestry (which seems very well supported, but with known limitations like HGT), and whether or not we have reconstructed that tree without error, which seems hopelessly unlikely. I would expect the details of our reconstruction of life's history to change with nearly every discovery. This is the thrill of discovery, isn't it? I sense different understandings of the underlying theory. As I read it, our theory attempts to explain mechanisms of change, but does NOT attempt to reconstruct biological history, species by species. Just as a theory of roadbuilding isn't going to predict whether some intersection has a stoplight.David W. Gibson
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
However, it is simply not true that the platypus shows bird traits, by which I mean traits that mean that it straddles lineages.
A trait that straddles a lineage. Is there a technical term for that? I want to look it up so I can perhaps make some sense out of what you're saying.
I think you are making the different mistake of confusing functional features (wings; fins; eyes) with what phylogeneticists call characters, namely features (which can be phenotypic or genetic) that vary along a continuum, even though the function of those features may differ at different points in the continuum. For instance digits are a phylogenetic character, and in both birds and bats become wings. But “wings” is not a phylogenetic character, because the characters that in some species form wings, in other species (penguins!!!) serve as pectoral fins.
Translation: We define what is going to be a character based on or assumptions of common descent. That way, no character can be used as evidence against common descent. Brilliant. But wrong.
character -- Heritable trait possessed by an organism; characters are usually described in terms of their states, for example: "hair present" vs. "hair absent," where "hair" is the character, and "present" and "absent" are its states. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_1.html
The input data used in a maximum parsimony analysis is in the form of "characters" for a range of taxa. There is no generally agreed-upon definition of a phylogenetic character, but operationally a character can be thought of as an attribute, an axis along which taxa are observed to vary. These attributes can be physical (morphological), molecular, genetic, physiological, or behavioral. The only widespread agreement on characters seems to be that variation used for character analysis should reflect heritable variation. Whether it must be directly heritable, or whether indirect inheritance (e.g., learned behaviors) is acceptable, is not entirely resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_parsimony_%28phylogenetics%29#Character_data
It can be difficult to decide whether a character is in fact the same, and thus can classified as a synapomorphy which may identify a group, or whether it only appears to be the same, and is thus a homoplasy which cannot identify a group. There is a danger of circular reasoning: assumptions about the shape of a phylogenetic tree are used to justify decisions about characters, which are then used as evidence for the shape of the tree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
Mung
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Lizzie,
My son used to telling people he’d seen a live dinosaur, then showing them a pigeon!
I don't know about pigeons, but I can't help think of Jurassic Park when I've see these birds: http://www.kenyabirds.org.uk/secretary.htmDoveton
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Darwinian evolution might be one explanation for the fit of the model; ID might be another; some baraminology model might yet be another (as Todd Wood believes).
Please explain how random genomic changes plus natural selection explains why some phylogenies based on molecular characteristics fit some phylogienies based on phenotypic characteristics. Please explain why you think that ID purports to offer an explanation for why some phylogenies based on molecular characteristics fit some phylogienies based on phenotypic characteristics. Do they exhibit CSI or something? Or are you just confused about ID. Again. Still.Mung
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Phylogenies are nested hierarchial models fitted to real data [except when the data doesn't fit]. The fact that nested hierarchical models fit the phenotypic data so well [except when they don't] is itself an explanandum.Mung
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Over here in The Land of Actual Science, ... the definition of “bird” is pretty arbitrary, anyhow.
Got it. That would of course, include the definition according to which birds are "just feathered dinosaurs."Mung
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
I've seen goalpost moving....but some of the comments from the Darwinists participating in this thread beat them all. It's almost as if they are desperate to do damage control, before science itself does their little pet theory in for good. For example, Mr. Matzke's first comment, written with such a flourish of zeal that he probably managed to even convince himself it was true...but let's see how convincing his comments were. On his comment no. B, he tries to gloss over the fact of Archy's move on the phylogenic tree as "minor in the whole scheme of things". Of course it's only minor...like Haeckel's drawings being fake...the fact that animal macroevolution has not been observed...the fact that Darwinism, no matter how it is redefined over the last 150 years, is simply inadequate to explain the Cambrian Explosion...yep, just minor little details.... On his comment C, he then gives more attention to the (his) definition of "birds", a definition that fits the fading paradigm he so desperately clings to. Wow. That's convenient. But not too long after he defines birds, he says "the definition of bird is pretty arbitrary"....Really? Then why are you so quick to define what a bird is in a way that so circularly supports Darwinism? He then says "Ask Todd Wood if you don’t believe me." Evidently, you're not too believable Mr. Matzke, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to make such an invitation. No Mr. Matzke, I think we're better off going where the evidence best points. At this point, it appears as if winged dinos appear suddenly in the fossil record, feathered and not feathered. Darwinism is simply inadequate to explain that fact. He then has the gall to say "Scientists will *never* take you guys or ID in general seriously unless and until you bother to understand the actual science before ranting and raving about it." No Mr. Matzke, the general public, thinking people and students will never have enough faith to believe nature does the magic you over at NCSE wish it did. Last time I checked, science was not about nature performing magic, or about special interest groups like NCSE promoting philosophical views in public taxpayer funded science class to unsuspecting students who are not allowed or encouraged to openly and freely question your attempts of dogmatic, misguided indoctrination. And finally, you seem to be under the misguided impression that science is about promoting Darwinism and its cultic doctrines, as if science was firmly established upon it. No Mr. Matzke, good science began by scientists who had a theistic worldview as an assumption upon which scientific research went forth. Good science continues, not because one world view is true or false, but because students and researchers are both allowed and encouraged to question the contemporary paradigm of their day. Rob students the opportunity to question Darwinism, and you're robbing them of good science. In the interest of good science, you need to step down from NCSE while you still can. You would be the first of many. It's only a matter of time.Bantay
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Liz you state: pigeons and penguins are (related to dinosaurs); iguanas and pythons aren’t (related to dinosaurs). And then, for evidence, you reference a drawing with imaginary lines drawn where no fossil evidence exists, not does recent findings of genetics support. So once again Liz I ask, do imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper represent hard evidence for you???bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
As to millions of 'missing pieces' argument for the fossil record: The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115 "Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious." Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "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 fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville Georgebornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out: Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils As well, there are very many similar creatures alive today (Marsupial and Placental mammals for one example) that, hypothetically, have completely different evolutionary paths yet their fossils are virtually indistinguishable from one another: Are look-alikes related? - September 2010 http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-relatedbornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
pigeons and penguins are; iguanas and pythons aren't. http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/figs/reptile_clado.gifElizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Liz states; 'And you can make a cool dinosaur model out of chicken bones, and learn some neat comparative anatomy at the same time:' That's all fine and well if you want to severely mislead your children,,, yet the actual evidence states,,, “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links - June 2009 Excerpt: "one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link,,, “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” ----"For one thing, birds are found (many millions of years) earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem,"... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm further notes: No Evidence For Birds Evolving From Anything https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1UF3DhlUnDM0Qrwh8ZmyLJA2r9hGFvHjoXki6WTzYg5M same for bats: Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/ and same for Pterosaurs The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM as well, using Darwinists's own mathematical models, from population genetics, for predicting change, we find neo-Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain the pattern of diversity we see for life on earth: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Are iguanas and pigeons and penguins and pythons all dinosaurs?ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
ScottAndres:
I can’t wait to see the look on my son’s face when I tell him that penguins are dinosaurs. I’ll make sure he tells his teacher, too.
She probably knows already, because she'll have been told already by lots of other little boys! My son used to telling people he'd seen a live dinosaur, then showing them a pigeon! And you can make a cool dinosaur model out of chicken bones, and learn some neat comparative anatomy at the same time: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Make-Your-Dinosaur-Chicken-Bones/dp/0060952261Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Well, you didn't actually say the word, "cladograms" news, but you talked about what I assumed was the move of Archy on the phylogenetic tree, i.e. a tweak to the tree. My comment was that if a mammal fossil was found with a bird-type lung, that would not simply involve tweaking the tree - it simply couldn't be accommodated on a tree! Because bird-lungs appear further down stream in the bird lineage than the point at which the mammal departed. So if a mammal with bird-lungs was found, the entire edifice of common descent would crash (well, the only alternative hypothesis would be convergent evolution, but to support that you'd need a whole load more data, and the whole field, as I said, would be buzzing!). To which you brought up the platypus. So I showed a cladogram of amniotes showing that the platypus in no way violates nested hierarchies. The bill is clearly "convergent evolution", because even a cursory glance at the skulls of a platypus and a duck is enough to show that they are not homologous.
There is no difficulty with a life form having the traits of a different type of life form without being closely related. Indeed, it’s common. The suggestion was that you not base any theory important to your position on not finding a mammal somewhere with an avian-type lung. Of course you can if you wish, but why risk unnecessary falsification?
I find this passage rather astonishing, news :) First of all, I do not choose theories on the basis of whether they are "important to my position", lol, but on the basis of whether they are well-supported explanations of the data. Second, you ask "why risk unnecessary falsification?" which makes the double error, firstly, of regarding my statement as a "risk" (risk of what? finding out something cool?), but secondly of apparently misunderstanding "falsification". If a "falsification" is "unnecessary" then it isn't a "falsification"! It's just a mistake! However, assuming you meant that I would be taking the erroneous position that bird-lungs in mammals would falsify common descent, I think you are making the different mistake of confusing functional features (wings; fins; eyes) with what phylogeneticists call characters, namely features (which can be phenotypic or genetic) that vary along a continuum, even though the function of those features may differ at different points in the continuum. For instance digits are a phylogenetic character, and in both birds and bats become wings. But "wings" is not a phylogenetic character, because the characters that in some species form wings, in other species (penguins!!!) serve as pectoral fins. What would make bird lungs in a mammal far more problematic than a duckbill on a mammal is that we can trace the characters that contribute to a bird lung right through the therapod lineage, a lineage that begins well after the mammal lineage split off. Whereas the lineage of characters that result in a platypus bill, or the platypus egg, are perfectly well accommodated within the mammalian lineage. The thing is, pace ba77, that phylogenetics isn't just a case of drawing lines on paper and hoping the evidence turns up to support them. They are carefully fitted models, and the data they are fitted to are phylogenetic characters. Contrary to what is often alleged here, there are many potential life-forms that would present major problems for common descent, and not just the precambrian rabbit. The interesting thing is that we do not find them! Chimeras are notable by their absence! Although future phylogeneticist are going to look at the results of genetic modification and think: something interfered with common descent here. And of course they will be right. Common descent is falsifiable (and indeed, is partly untrue - HGT being an example). But moving Archy to a slightly different bit of the tree doesn't falsify it, just adjusts the model parameters slightly. Trying to accommodate a mammal with bird-lungs, on the other hand, would fry a lot of computers.Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
As I understand it (and I am not a biologist), homologous structures share some common ancestral structure, and varied from there. And therefore, any structure that develops AFTER that initial branch cannot be homologous to the original. It can be morphologically similar and functionally equivalent, but not homologous. Personally, I see the attempt to reconstruct evolutionary history based on extremely fragmentary evidence as inherently problematic. We have enough fragments to see the overall pattern (common descent, nested hierarchies), but nowhere near enough to identify all the organisms that ever lived, or which were the ancestors or descendents of which. So, like someone doing a jigsaw puzzle, we place unconnected pieces tentatively - where it seems they are most likely to fit pending more pieces. And of course, pretty often we find pieces that dislodge the tentative positioning of others. This hardly means there's no overall picture, or that if we had all the pieces they wouldn't all fit together snugly. It just means there's a sharp limit to our detailed kinowledge, which in practice means constant reshuffling as we learn more. It somehow doesn't bother me that some dinosaur lineage eventually developed into modern birds, or that in the process it produced a great many very similar branches that did NOT survive to the present day, making it speculative as to which organisms lie on which branch. Now, if new discoveries did NOT lead to rearrangements of the proposed tree details, then I would be suspicious, because it would imply that certainty had begun to trump evidence.David W. Gibson
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle, Goodness, how did you take all this from what was said? Who said anything about cladograms? There is no difficulty with a life form having the traits of a different type of life form without being closely related. Indeed, it's common. The suggestion was that you not base any theory important to your position on not finding a mammal somewhere with an avian-type lung. Of course you can if you wish, but why risk unnecessary falsification? Many unusual life forms have come and gone.News
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, a more realistic, and thoroughly researched, picture of the history of life on earth is a such: Accidental origins: Where species come from - March 2010 Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel's team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation - but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: "It isn't the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it's single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html?page=2 And that thoroughly researched finding from genetics matches up extremely well with the fossil record once we remove the artificially imposed imaginary lines that neo-darwinists have forced on the actual fossil record: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/cephalopoda/TIMELINE.JPGbornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
We'll sell pillows at the gift shops.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
I'm also thinking of a really great real-life version of Jurassic Park that would really disturb some animal rights activists.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
*all* birds are “just feathered dinosaurs”, I can't wait to see the look on my son's face when I tell him that penguins are dinosaurs. I'll make sure he tells his teacher, too.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
What evidence, the fossils certainly are not there for you as previously noted, and you certainly have no demonstrated mechanism in which to account for such large scale macro-evolutionary changes, and as well, despite your continued reference that genetic phylogenetics supports your 'imaginary' drawings of branching patterns, the truth turns out to be, once again, quite different than what neo-Darwinists had originally led us to believe: ============== Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year. Here is another article, written by an evolutionist mind you, that states the true pattern found for life, from comparative genetic evidence, is not the tree pattern Darwin had envisioned: A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010 Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4 As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, this following article and video shows that the 'same exact genes' in different species have actually been shown to produce 'completely different' body structures: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6bXA50c0 etc.. etc.. etc.. Yet, I'm fairly certain that you already knew all this Elizabeth, For crying out loud even evolutionists admit it,,, thus why are you so dishonest to the evidence as to continually misrepresent the true state of the genetic evidence???bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Not slick, DNA - just referencing my own point about bird-lungs in mammals. News was implying that somehow the "bird traits" in platypus is the equivalent to bird lungs in a mammal. I'm explaining the sense in which they are not equivalent, i.e. clarifying my point. As for the Science Daily article - try reading the paper it actually references. Do people here really think that the platypus is a chimera?Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
ba77:
So Elizabeth, does drawing lines on a paper, between different kinds of animals, as your first site did, constitute actual evidence, or does it not honestly more realistically constitute drawing imaginary relationships with no solid empirical proof whatsoever???
Neither, ba77. The drawing is a fitted model and it is fitted to actual data. In other words, the evidence supports this model.Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
News: "The duck-billed platypus, after all, shows mammal, bird,and reptile traits." Liz: "However, it is simply not true that the platypus shows bird traits, by which I mean traits that mean that it straddles lineages." I don't recall news saying the "platypus straddles lineages," only that it shows "mammal, bird, and reptile traits." Slick. Textbook. You lead with the hammer: it's simply not true... then slip in the cover: *by which I mean...* Nicely done. But anyhow: "The duck-billed platypus: part bird, part reptile, part mammal — and the genome to prove it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htmjunkdnaforlife
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
So Elizabeth, does drawing lines on a paper, between different kinds of animals, as your first site did, constitute actual evidence, or does it not honestly more realistically constitute drawing imaginary relationships with no solid empirical proof whatsoever??? ,,,I got a few drawings of my own Elizabeth: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263/ Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm This following quote sums up the implications of these findings: "Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle," Richard Dawkins - River Out Of Eden pg. 83 Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010 Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles - November 9 2010 Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-oldest-fossil-shrimp-muscles.html ----------------- Mighty to Save http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJmyg22Z9-obornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Considering this is at least the fourth post on this subject, does linking over to WND really contribute to the discussion? Did the birthers catch something you and the rest of your links missed?DrREC
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
News: No, I won't "be careful what I wish for" News! Why should I be? If Common Descent turns out not to be true, that would be really exciting! However, it is simply not true that the platypus shows bird traits, by which I mean traits that mean that it straddles lineages. Here is a cladogram for diapsids: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/10/monotreme_cladogram_lg.php As you can see, there is no problem in fitting monotremes into the cladogram. Certainly egg-laying is no problem, and simply indicates that monotremes diverged from the branch of mammals in which vivipary evolved. And if you are thinking of the "duck bill" - well, no :) Sure, it looks a bit ducky at first glance, but here is an anatomical drawing of a duck skull: http://www.pjpellicane.com/Duck%20skull.psd.jpg And here is a platypus skull: http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Diversity/09.MammaliaImages/PlatypusSkullL.jpg The only similarities are that they are both elongated skulls. The "bills" are not homologous. But bird lungs in a mammal really would get the joint buzzing:)Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Over in imagination land Nick Matzke tells us:
(a) *all* birds are “just feathered dinosaurs”, thus the media coverage of this study as saying that Archy is “a dinosaur not a bird” is highly misleading;
Yeah Nick. Unfortunately you don't have any scientific evidence to support that claim. NickMatzke:
Scientists will *never* take you guys or ID in general seriously unless and until you bother to understand the actual science before ranting and raving about it.
1- Those "scientists" cannot suppoort their position 2- The vast majority of people say your position is a joke because it is untestable.Joseph
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply