Sol3a1
Posts: 110
Joined: July 2008
|
Here's a true gem of a TARD mine for you guys!
It is a list of those studies the DI believes promotes ID.
Consider it my Vernal Equinox present to you:
===========================
genotype/phenotype relationship
Evolutions original predictions are being falsified every day and most all evolutionists do not know their theory is in ruins.
Keep your eyes on ENCODE, they are about to destroy naturalism
===============
UNRELATED LOOKALIKES, J.Z. YOUNG, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "....similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779
==============
NONGENETIC SIMILARITY, SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM
==============
when we look at the genetics of [different but 'similar' organisms]... we find that they do NOT come from common genetics... For example, in the newt we find that the hand develops from segments 2 through 5, in the lizard [it develops] from segments 6 through 9, and in man [it develops] from segments 13 through. Totally different genetics account for this similarity....
We look at... [the] reptile Ichthyosaurus [which is very similar to the] dolphin... or porpoise... not a fish type [but] a mammal, [it] has to breathe... A reptile and a mammal [which both] look like a fish... [And] sometimes the porpoise... is confused for the shark [which is a fish] they're so similar...
[J. Z. YOUNG, Professor of Anatomy, Oxford, LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.
779]:
============
'If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.'
[T. H. MORGAN, Professor of Zoology, Columbia University, SCIENCE MONTHLY, 16; 3; 237, p. 216]
===============
'It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless.'
[SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Professor Embryology, University of London, Director BMNH, Oxford Biology Reader, p. 16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM]
==============
"To infer a genetic relationship between two species [i.e. to infer that species S descended from species R] on the basis of a similarity in appearance...can be deceptive...because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar [but belong to different family trees]." (Lewin, "Bones of Contention", New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p123)
==============
"One of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary histories must be true [of the arthropods]. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups [which is hard to believe] or compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages [which is equally hard to believe, for it is difficult to imagine how natural selection could favour the loss of sight]." (Oakley & Cunningham, "Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye", PNAS, Vol 99, No 3, 2002, p1426-1430)
=================
"In general, the homology of structures [i.e. the fact that different animals share many of the same features] cannot be ascribed to inheritance of homologous genes or sets of genes." (Sattler, "Homology—A Continuing Challenge", Systematic Botany, 1984, 9(4):386)
================
"[Evolution by DNA mutations] is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution." (Raff & Kaufman, "Embryos, Genes, and Evolution", Macmillan, New York, 1983, p67-78)
===============
"About a decade ago,...scientists started analysing a variety of genes from different organisms, [but] found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis." (Lake, Jain & Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life", Science 283, 1999, p2027-2028)
================
"Analyses based on different genes (and even different analyses based on the same genes) yield...a diversity of phylogenetic trees." (Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla", Evolution 53, 1999, p319-325)
=============
"Most protein phylogenies contradict each other—as well as the rRNA tree." (Philippe & Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution, No 49, 1999, p509-523)
=============
"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced." (Woese, "The universal ancestor", PNAS USA 95, 1998, p6854-6859),
================
"Incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree...[and] are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." (Woese, Ibid)
================
"It has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences...that show gradual, smooth transitions between species." (Hickman, Roberts & Hickman, "Integrated Principles of Zoology", Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St Louis, 1988, p866)
===============
Genetic Phylogeny
Biologists aren't entirely satisfied with the intrinsic subjectivity of classification, and have hoped that molecular biology would yield a more quantitative approach. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA sequences would yield quantitative numbers that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree of accuracy. According to an article in the January 1998 issue of Science:
Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought. (Maley & Marshall, "The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics," Science, 23 January 1998, page 505)
The article then discusses a figure that shows that mollusks are more closely related to deuterostomes than arthropods when the creatures being compared are a scallop (a mollosk), a sea urchin (a deuterostome), and a brine shrimp (an arthropod). That isn't too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp, and the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin shown on their diagram isn't surprising.
But when a tarantula is used as the representative of the arthropod, there is a 92% correlation between the scallop and the tarantula. It doesn't seem reasonable that a scallop should be more closely related to a harry, land-dwelling spider than to a sea urchin. This is troubling to the authors of the Science article, which leads them to remark:
The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate ... current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly. (Ibid)
==================
Waterstone et al, Nature 420, 520 - 562
"an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes"
==============
Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans.
http://www.newscientist.com/article....en.html
=============
INTERPRETATION OF SIMILARITY, T.H. MORGAN Prof. Zoology, Columbia, Univ., "If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.", SCI. MO., l6;3;237, p.216
==========================
NONGENETIC SIMILARITY, SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM
=======================
http://darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
"Because similar species are thought to share a relatively recent common ancestor, they are assumed to have not had much time to evolve differences between them. That explains why they are similar, and it also predicts that such species do not have significant differences. Their genome differences should be minor. This is because evolution is limited by the rate at which genetic variations can appear and subsequently spread throughout the respective lineages. For instance, consider two species which are supposed to share a common ancestor dating back only a few millions of years, such as the human and chimp. Evolution expected that such cousin species would have quite similar genes. There would be no new genes evolved in such a brief time period. Indeed, for decades evolutionists have cited minor genetic differences between such allied species as powerful evidence for evolution. [1,2,3,4,5]"
"This prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have since been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. Even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins"
"Evolution predicts that more distant species should have greater differences in their genomes. After all, species in distant limbs of the evolutionary tree likely have different evolutionary pressures and have been evolving independently for millions of years. This genome difference should be all the more given that many DNA changes are phenotype-neutral. Such changes can accumulate, independently in the different evolutionary lineages, as they go unchecked by evolution's selection process."
"Even more remarkable are the recently discovered ultra-conserved elements (UCEs). Thousands of these DNA segments, hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. Evolutionists were astonished to discover these highly similar DNA sequences in such distant species. In fact, across the different species some of these sequences are 100% identical. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. "I about fell off my chair," remarked one evolutionist. [2]"
"It was also found that the relaxin protein was anomalous when compared across different species. The pig, for example, was found to be more closely related to a shark than to a rodent. [9,10] Evolutionists admitted that "The conclusion to be drawn from the relaxin sequence data is that they do not fit the evolutionary clock model." Furthermore, in order to fit the data to the molecular clock hypothesis, one must imagine that different regions of the genome evolve at different rates for a species, and that the same region evolves at different rates in different species. [11] And there is the serum albumin gene family which shows significant deviations from clock-like evolution. [12]"
The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.8
===================
"...with the full genome sequence in hand, for Aquifex and a dozen other microbes, biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion," Carl Woese
=============
"The absence of sequences closely related to the slowly changing proteins of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton remains unsettling," Dr. Russell Doolittle
==================
Early Birds Shake Up Avian Tree of Life
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlsci....tre.php
"A fascinating paper was just published by some of my colleagues in the top-tier journal, Science, that analyzes the largest collection of DNA data ever assembled for birds. This analysis effectively redraws avian phylogeny, or family tree, thus shaking up our current understanding of the early, or "deep", evolutionary relationships of birds. For example, one of the most surprising findings of this analysis is that parrots and songbirds are "sister groups" -- each other's closest relatives!
And here's another surprise; falcons are the sister group to the parrots and songbirds. Further, the falcons (Falconidae) include the New World vultures -- but Falcons are not closely related to eagles, hawks and osprey (Accipitridae), as previously thought."
"These analyses reveal two major findings: First, the classifications and conventional wisdom regarding the evolutionary relationships among many birds is wrong. Second, birds that have similar appearances or behaviors are not necessarily related to each other. According to these data;"
"The fossil record strongly suggests that the Charadriiformes should precede Ciconiiformes along with a few other avian orders, and the fossil record for Turnix suggests it predates gulls and alcids. And wow, I thought sandgrouse were located within this clade?? Which gene(s) relocated them?"
"The placement of Tinamous within the ratites instead of being basal to them suggests either that flight was lost and gained several times in the evolutionary history of birds or that flight was lost independently many times, but only within the ratites. Weird!"
Hackett, S.J., Kimball, R.T., Reddy, S., Bowie, R.C., Braun, E.L., Braun, M.J., Chojnowski, J.L., Cox, W.A., Han, K., Harshman, J., Huddleston, C.J., Marks, B.D., Miglia, K.J., Moore, W.S., Sheldon, F.H., Steadman, D.W., Witt, C.C., Yuri, T. (2008). A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History. Science, 320(5884), 1763-1768. DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704.
==================
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.
- Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 24, pg. 179 (1993)
================
That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent.(incompatible)
- Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 44, pgs. S117-S120 (Supplement 1, 1997)
=================
"[d]espite increasing methodological sophistication, phylogenies derived from morphology, and those inferred from molecules, are not always converging on a consensus."
- W. W. De Jong, "Molecules remodel the mammalian tree," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7):270-274 (July 7, 1998).
===================
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. ... To summarize, biologists have made two discoveries that challenge the argument from anatomical homology. The first is that the development of homologous structures can be governed by different genes and can follow different developmental pathways. The second discovery, conversely, is that sometimes the same gene plays a role in producing different adult structures. Both of these discoveries seem to contradict neo-Darwinian expectations.
Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, and Ralph Seelke, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, pgs. 44-45 (Hill House, 2007)."
====================
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html
Michael Dentons "The Failure of Homology"
Professor Michael Denton: "Evolution is a theory in crisis"
In truth, however, the results of molecular comparisons do not work in favour of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the cytochrome-C protein, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects.168 Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.169
Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments:
Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology... At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago... the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.170
The "Tree of Life" Is Collapsing
In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree". However, they were disappointed by the results. According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein pyhlogenies contradict each other as well as the RNA tree." 171
Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:
"Scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." 172
Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:
No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." 173
A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well...174
In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells sums up the situation in 2000 in this way:
Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizzarre trees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecular phylogeny into a crisis.175
=================
New DATA on this is comming out all the time. Darwinian evolutionists are constantly changing their failed predictions to keep from embarassment
|
