Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 08 2007,06:29) | idnet.com.au | Quote | We just had a radio news item stating that bird DNA most resembles small dinosaur DNA showing how birds evolved by Darwinian Evolution from dinosaus.
It was from the current Nature.
I wondered where they got the dinosaur DNA from to compare it with birds? |
Another confirmation of that controversial Cell Theory.
News @ Nature: But which came first: flying birds or the smaller genome? To find out, Chris Organ from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues estimated the genome sizes of the dinosaur ancestors of birds.
To get genetic information out of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old, the team looked at the size of the bone cells. First, they established the relationship between the size of the bone cells and that of the genome in 26 living species of vertebrate, from fish to birds. Using sections of fossilized bone, they then measured the size of the pockets in which the bone cells would have sat in 31 species of extinct land-bound dinosaurs. From that they could estimate the size of the bone cells and, therefore, the size of the dinosaurs' genomes. |
shaner74 | Quote | | I read it too. If I recall correctly, they made a rather large assumption (Darwinists making assumptions - go figure!). They determined the size of bone cells (osteocytes) correlate directly with genome size. Then they looked at fossilized dino bone, and concluded dinosaur genomes are small. So essentially, they have assumed dino genomes are small without having dino DNA. |
It's not an assumption if they demonstrated a correlation. It's an inference, consistent with independent research that had already shown other cell-types were similarly correlated.
Said Professor Scott Edwards, "In fact, our work shows these streamlined genomes arose long before the first birds and flight, and can be added to the list of dinosaur traits previously thought to be found only in modern birds, including feathers, pulmonary innovations, and parental care and nesting."
idnet.com.au | Quote | | There may be a rough correlation between bone cell size and DNA content/ genome size, but that does not justufy the headlines highlighting the extrapolation (DNA similarity) rather than the original finding (bone cell size correlation). |
The correlation justifies the inference. The reason genome-size is important is because it is related to a high metabolism.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
ferchrissake, so do I! 
