Quote# 39037

[In response to an article about the duck-billed platapus]

Some commentators debate whether this research has anything to do with proving evolution to be true. That's not the case. Evolution is assumed at the outset and thus the study's authors believe the DNA shows something about mammalian ancestry. But from a neutral standpoint all the study reveals is that genotype and phenotype are closely linked. In fact, the presence of features from mammals and reptiles in the same highly specialised animal is not easily explained with common ancestry although an explanation might not be impossible. Evolutionists should concede that point.

cmontagne1, Washington Post comments 29 Comments [5/10/2008 4:15:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Eric the Blue

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Honker Muddlefoot

Know what? In isolation, that's a good, well-considered point. In light of the massive body of evidence that exists for evolution, however, it feels like a grasping at straws, or almost willful blindness to the facts.

5/10/2008 4:19:41 PM

Dark_Lord_Prime

@Honker: or almost willful blindness to the facts.


Almost??

5/10/2008 4:20:49 PM

cyborgtroy

AAAH

The biology words r confuzing meh

No comment!

5/10/2008 4:31:12 PM

Dinomancer

Actually, the presence of features from both reptiles and mammals proves nothing but common ancestry in any rational world.

Not to blow your arguement out of the water, but there you go.

5/10/2008 4:36:26 PM

cool cats

No matter how many facts you provide to meet the fundie's demand for evidence, they will never accept evolution as true. Why do they bother demanding it in the first place?

5/10/2008 4:36:32 PM

Bryan65

And today's 'Soreass Award' goes to...

5/10/2008 4:45:19 PM

solomongrundy

Eh? So genotype and phenotype are closely linked?

Bollocks, that's just Lamarckism, discredited in the nineteenth century.

Putting long words into your case does not make it any less laughable.

>8-(

5/10/2008 4:47:01 PM

Vampirehummingbird

the closest relative of the platapus is the echidna, also a monotreme. Monotremes are extinct everywhere except for these two Australian species.

5/10/2008 5:36:41 PM

joe schmoe

cmontagne1 is the closest relative to the platapus.

5/10/2008 5:45:22 PM

onions

put down the thesaurus and actually LEARN YOU SOME

5/10/2008 5:49:06 PM

Papabear

Honker Muddlefoot -- Exactly!


5/10/2008 5:52:36 PM

aaa

You know what yer talking about?

5/10/2008 6:04:39 PM

John

If genotype and phenotype were truly closely linked, that might be a good argument for special creation. The problem is, they aren't. Genotypes are loaded with artifacts that no longer have any function in one organism but do in related organisms. An example is the presence of non-functional genes for color vision opsins in dogs.

5/10/2008 6:13:06 PM

Red Dragon Disciple

Mammals evolved from reptiles, lol.

5/10/2008 6:13:15 PM

Aethernaut

Uh, I'm no biologist but wouldn't the presence of mammalian, avian, and reptilian features in a single creature's DNA in fact lend evidence to common descent?

5/10/2008 6:26:03 PM



There was a team in an Australian soccer league called the Platypuses. The players were funny looking.

5/10/2008 6:28:31 PM

HeathenAngel

*falls over giggling at Dinomancer's nonchalance*

5/10/2008 7:19:05 PM



Two thousand pigs flying make more sense than what you've said, no matter how many scientific words you don't seem to know what they mean you've used.

5/10/2008 7:21:52 PM

Dinomancer

@HeathenAngel

I do try. :)

5/10/2008 7:28:30 PM

Alcari

Wow, that's a sucky article. Of course, what can you expect from a newspaper? Of course, even with better interpretation, some people just refuse to see the facts.

Better article:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_platypus_genome.php

5/10/2008 8:07:40 PM

John

@Aethernaut: ... wouldn't the presence of mammalian, avian, and reptilian features in a single creature's DNA in fact lend evidence to common descent?

They didn't find any avian features in the DNA. The "duck bill" just looks a bit like a duck's bill - it has no structural relationship to one. That would be a blow to the ToE.

5/10/2008 9:44:59 PM

Mister Spak

Some fundtards debate whether research has anything to do with understanding reality. That's not the case. Evolution is supported by massive amounts of evidence and thus the study's authors don't spend their lab time proving the sky is blue or the earth is round or some similar theory. But from a neutral standpoint all the study reveals is that genotype and phenotype are closely linked. In fact, the presence of features from mammals and reptiles in the same highly specialised animal is most easily explained with common ancestry although fundies endlessly dispute the obvious. Creationists should concede that point.

Fixed.

5/10/2008 10:43:33 PM

Dinomancer

@John

It wouldn't be much of a blow, it would just mean the platapus had been placed in the wrong order and/or phylum. Considering the ad hoc nature of taxa up until about fifty years ago (and even now) that is no big deal at all.

5/10/2008 10:44:57 PM

Aethernaut

@John: They didn't find any avian features in the DNA.

Uh, actually, they did which was one of the surprises. The genes that determine the sex of the animal are similar to birds. I'd read it in a couple of different places since that story came out, that's why I mentioned it.

Mammal-lizard-bird, which is pretty awesome!

5/10/2008 11:17:13 PM

Falconer

FAIL.

5/11/2008 2:23:12 AM

1 2 | top: comments page