100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Mon 05/14/12 01:57 PM
|
|
Have you ever thought that some evolutionists have the emotional propensity not to believe in God? Not to be rude, but ****ing "duh". I started conversations on the subject of emotional biases in everyone beliefs before I was 10 years old. Of course they do. This may play a significant role in the popularity of evolution among individuals in certain scientifically illeterate subcultures, but it is not itself the basis for the popularity of the theory of evolution in scientific circles. It's self serving and short sighted when creationists (not you) dismiss the popularity of the theory of evolution among scientists on that basis alone. While theists are somewhat rare among real scientists, they do exist, and the majority of theistic biologists agree that the evidence supports evolution. This is not an argument from authority (as I don't claim that their agreement necessarily indicates truth), I'm simply emphasizing that there are some very well informed people who think that evolution is overwhelmingly likely to be true and who do not suffer from the particular bias you mentioned. This could affect their interpretation of the facts. Whose interpretation? That of the practicing scientist, or the uneducated pro-evolutionist? Once we've accepted that many pro-evolutionists are idiots, the second influence doesn't matter. Sure, yes, of course, many non-scientists who believe in evolution do so because it serves their emotional needs to do so - who cares? While scientists are human and individually commit small errors of thought based on emotional bias and confirmation bias on a daily basis, the modern scientific process does a phenomenal job of correcting for this. Which is not to imply that we should have blind faith in it, but we should also not discount the majority opinion of scientists as 'likely merely the result of confirmation bias', or any other simple bias. Maybe if I am honest and sincere I will keep finding more scientific support for creationism? I'm not assuming we misunderstood each other, but I do want to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that honesty and sincerity alone are sufficient to ensure you get closer to the truth, I meant: assuming you are honest and sincere in what you've said in this thread, then I think it is likely you will continue to learn more real science on the subject with an open mind, and in that case you will get closer to the truth. I'm also not assuming exactly what 'the truth' is, only that it is somewhere other than the idiocy of young earth creationism and is also not various straw mans of the theory of evolution.* (Incidentally, there are many ignorant pro-evolutionist who actually argue for various straw man positions that creationists advance for the theory of evolution. I think its essential to begin a serious conversation with a precise definition of 'the theory of evolution' - I haven't done so in this thread because I'm trying not to get involved in the massive time-suck that conversations like this can become.) * (Edit: Not implying that you take a YEC position, nor implying that evolutionist straw men are essential to your position.) And on the other hand if you are honest and sincere this would require you to be objective too, evolutionists are very confident in their hypothesis, and often this confidence unfortunately leads to "tinted glasses". Based on what you've said so far, I'm going to assume you meant to be more generous than that and insert the word "some" between "too," and "evolutionists". My response here is similar to the two paragraphs above that start with "Whose interpretation?" Metal quoted: When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating.... Great post, Metal! Bushido wrote: go join the forums over at the JREF, where hundreds of scientists, some of which have lots of time on their hands to walk you through your misunderstandings will be more than happy to help you along the path to understanding. http://forums.randi.org/ Expecting us few who are not biologists to explore every detail is not really fair, but expecting hundreds of individuals, some of which really are evolutionary biologists to respond is a little more effective. Go a head and create a thread just like this one in the science forum over at the JREF. Feel free to link back here, I am sure some of us would enjoy to tag along. I think this is a great idea. Entering into a dialog with people who are very well informed in the related field is essential. Reading modern grad school level textbooks, and current scientific journals are also very helpful. Creationists websites tend to be heavily cherry-picked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses. And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves. I was teasing myself for my judgementalism. I don't really think this judgementalism or irritation is valid, I didn't mean to validate mine or anyone's irritation. The evolution/creation debate is more subtle than the homeopath debate, and there is more room for intelligent people to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses. And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves. I was teasing myself for my judgementalism. I don't really think this judgementalism or irritation is valid, I didn't mean to validate mine or anyone's irritation. The evolution/creation debate is more subtle than the homeopath debate, and there is more room for intelligent people to disagree. There is infinite knowledge to learn in how the changing of genes changes the organism. The creation theory mostly just works at the "big bang" level because as time goes on, there is less and less opportunity to supplant the science. Some comments on this thread are good examples of poor science being used to explain creationism and warping facts to meet the theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some comments on this thread are good examples of poor science being used to explain creationism and warping facts to meet the theory. I definitely agree, what is a creationist that didn't study 6 years of biology at a real university to do? Its not like our culture makes the proper context for these facts readily available. Sadly, some creationists sites go into the science more deeply than, say, newsweek or people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 05/14/12 03:58 PM
|
|
Some comments on this thread are good examples of poor science being used to explain creationism and warping facts to meet the theory. I definitely agree, what is a creationist that didn't study 6 years of biology at a real university to do? Its not like our culture makes the proper context for these facts readily available. Sadly, some creationists sites go into the science more deeply than, say, newsweek or people. Just be honest with yourself with the degree to which your education is formally developed. ie if not at all, then remain humble and try to seek out better sources. The best sources are the professionals who do the work themselves. Actually here is a current thread over at the JREF. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236006 and early on a book is recommended that deals with the genetic side of the theory. The actual book recommended was : "The Making of the Fittest", by Sean B. Carroll. I have no opinion on the book, but he is a well regarded author and winner of the Stephen J. Gould prize. Id say that means the he is well respected in the community at the very least. I watched one of this talks and felt he was very intelligent. Another book recommended was, "Principles of Geology", by C. Lyelle. This is a book that was published before Darwins, "On the Origin of Species", and informed Darwin on many matters of geology. You might be surprised to find these at your local library. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 05/15/12 05:39 PM
|
|
Not specific to any rebuttals, or claims in this thread, but this video really impressed me with this guys handle of evolutionary detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrbIUNUu1JE&feature=g-all-lik Evogenvideos appears to be a well informed gent. In the middle of the vid he describes various kinds of selection. Positive selection, negative selection, @ ~ 6:00 minutes in the vid he starts to discuss these factors. I think its worth mentioning that more than just beneficial traits are being selected against. Traits get selected out of the gene pool, he lists stabilizing selection, sexual selection and disruptive selection, which are things not often discussed. Of particular note . . Stabilizing or ambidirectional selection, (not the same thing as negative or purifying selection[1][2]), is a type of natural selection in which genetic diversity decreases as the population stabilizes on a particular trait value. This is probably the most common mechanism of action for natural selection. Stabilizing selection commonly uses negative selection (a.k.a. purifying selection) to select against extreme values of the character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution.
The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Tue 05/22/12 01:11 AM
|
|
I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses. And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves. But you know, I have to take some umbrage at the whole thing really. Here we are defending advanced genetics, taxonomy, geology, and biology in a forum with maybe 12 people who follow the science forum, where over half are pretty much scientifically illiterate, and the other half specialize in fields which rarely if ever touch on the periphery of this subject matter. For such people as myself, metal, massage to defend this subject matter takes a lot of remedial reading on a subject while really cool, is not our bread and butter. This explains our frustration, and it explains the quick one off comments. Then we have a person who does not understand science trying to poke holes in what is probably the most well founded theory in science. I have a challenge for howzityoume, go join the forums over at the JREF, where hundreds of scientists, some of which have lots of time on their hands to walk you through your misunderstandings will be more than happy to help you along the path to understanding. http://forums.randi.org/ Expecting us few who are not biologists to explore every detail is not really fair, but expecting hundreds of individuals, some of which really are evolutionary biologists to respond is a little more effective. Go a head and create a thread just like this one in the science forum over at the JREF. Feel free to link back here, I am sure some of us would enjoy to tag along. The only reason I joined this particular discussion is because I noticed that the opening posts and the following posts were generally one-sided in support of evolution with only a few exceptions, and I thought it would be appropraite to give other viewpoints. I did not start this thread, I merely joined in and feel it was appropriate to do so. If you think I need a higher level of opposition, then I take that as an unintended compliment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Tue 05/22/12 01:36 AM
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think its essential to begin a serious conversation with a precise definition of 'the theory of evolution' - I haven't done so in this thread because I'm trying not to get involved in the massive time-suck that conversations like this can become.) I am arguing against evolution as the theory behind the appearance of modern life-forms. I agree that evolution exists, I do not agree that it caused the observation of millions of genetically complex organisms. I do not think we need a definition to know what I am getting at here. These conversations are time-suckers, agreed. I just feel that if someone wishes to start a thread and post in a thread like this, then they should be prepared to defend their views. Something that I feel has not been done by evolutionists in this thread. Many organisms have currently observable highly complex DNA strands. For evolution to be the favored theory on where these DNA strands come from, evolution has to have some sort of evidence for the ability for nature to create additional functional genes. Empirically this evidence is lacking, this is my whole point. Others can distract as much as they like, they can quote irrelevant Wikipedia articles, my point stands as it did from the beginning. Even if they do find it, does evolution then become the MOST FAVORED theory? No, not even then, because you need more than one instance to prove that evolution caused the appearance of modern life-forms. One instance just means that evolution could have influenced one life-form once by adding functional genes, more evidence is needed. But for now, even ONE instance is lacking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology. True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations. Your post makes false statements about geology based on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists don't set the dates and processes of strata, geologists do and have no bias toward biology. Those that support the theory of evolutionist do generally interpret the geological layers according to a progression over time. Their interpretations are based on evolutionary assumptions that are not necessarily the most logical projection of the available data. Your statement is 100% false. What is your source? Geological dating is done by material analysis and cross referencing. Biology has absolutely nothing to do with it but is used as a general reference in "ages" or "periods". There are a few instances where biology can "confirm" a dating of strata, but those cases are few and very special. How dating is actually done. Circularity? The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like: "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils." Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation). When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences. If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong." If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma. If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested. An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly. So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims). I've got no problems with geologists, it's the interpretation of the geologic timescale by evolutionists that is not necessarily correct. ie geologists find earlier trilobites below later Carboniferous plants. Evolutionists often then interpret this to mean Carboniferous plants did not exist at the same time as those early trilobite layers, and plant life evolved. The fossil record is not saying this, geologists just record the layers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 05/22/12 08:15 AM
|
|
There are no evolutionists in this thread. That is your first mistake. In this thread are people who accept evolution as being an accurate theory that explains the evidence better than any other theory to date.
In my opinion you can play this game of questioning every detail of the massive undertaking that is the modern theory of evolution (especially on a dating site with no evolutionary biologists) until your old and grey and still have details left to nit pick over. However that is for the professionals to do, not us laymen. I know you get your rocks off asking questions about genetics and seeing laymen stumble to answer or refute you, but that is really not the same thing as calling into question the theory of evolution. I tell you what, you tell me your theory for how modern life has come to exist, and we will look at the evidence and talk about that. Sound good? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no evolutionists in this thread. That is your first mistake. In this thread are people who accept evolution as being an accurate theory that explains the evidence better than any other theory to date. In my opinion you can play this game of questioning every detail of the massive undertaking that is the modern theory of evolution (especially on a dating site with no evolutionary biologists) until your old and grey and still have details left to nit pick over. However that is for the professionals to do, not us laymen. I know you get your rocks off asking questions about genetics and seeing laymen stumble to answer or refute you, but that is really not the same thing as calling into question the theory of evolution. I tell you what, you tell me your theory for how modern life has come to exist, and we will look at the evidence and talk about that. Sound good? Yeah it does sound good. You see, I admit that creation is just a theory from an empirical point of view. I do believe its true from a faith point of view, but I'm not using that as an empirical argument. I believe all organisms were created at the same time. I believe they took turns to proliferate, and the fossils of the rarer types are often not discovered because of their scarcity during periods that other types proliferated. I believe micro-evolution and mutation explain differences within species and across some species, yet cannot explain the creation of increased genetic complexity. Regarding genetics, I believe the observance of chromosomal patterns retaining a certain genetic length or reducing in size, yet never increasing in the number of beneficial genes is an observance that favours creation over evolution as an empirically supported theory. I believe that observing the fossil record for clues regarding evolution, puts both theories on an even footing. Because the lack of rarer types during phases of proliferation is just as easy to explain as the evolutionary explanation for the lack of observance of transitionary fossils. Both theories say you do not find fossils of rare types, that is why they are not discovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Tue 05/22/12 02:39 PM
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is in direct comflict with the law of chemistry ie enthropy.for science to have any credibility its basic laws should agree and reinforce each other or be alligned in that direction.so I ask has evolution explained the origins of life or only purpot to?morever cosmology has yet to explain the cause of all processes that led to existence of this universe having started with only energy.
|
|
|
|
|
