EDIT - Sorry TFS, knew I forgot something... The link:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4059.asp

www.answersingenesis.com, a gutter pseudo-scientific website, will stoop to any level, including telling flat lies, to support it's agenda. No, not just misquotes, not misleading equivocation, and not poor logic; I mean this is a flat lie.

The evolutionary phylogenic tree of life contains the following two distinct groups: the Lepidosauromorpha (comprised of lizards and snakes) and the Archosauromorpha (which contains crocodiles, birds, and dinosaurs).

Based on this phylogenetic tree, one can make the prediction that the genetic sequences responsible for the same proteins in birds, crocodiles, and snakes will be more similar between birds and crocodiles than between snakes and crocodiles. More specifically, the a-hemoglobin sequence of a crocodile would be predicted by the theory of evolution to more closely resemble that of a chicken than that of a snake.

Given that, how revealing is the following quote from AiG, from none other than AiG poster-child Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, in listing things that contradict the predictions of the theory of common descent ...

The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of a chicken that that of a viper (their fellow reptiles).

And I thought the "too many humans" article was bad...

Moderator Note: When quoting a source you are required to post a link or reference which article, textbook, etc., it came from.
Thanks.

Anyway, what's most ironic about the lie is the fact that Dr. Sarfati has actually introduced tremendous evidence in favor of common descent. I would love to hear a creationist answer this biology question with something which does not absolutely reak of "ad hoc"...

1) Would you expect the crocodile's a-hemoglobin genetics to more closely resemble that of an eagle or that of a lizard? Why?

(Hint, I know the answer, but I've never seen the hemoglobin gene for eagles or lizards. Want to know how I know?)

So this computer person and non-scientist BaldApe spruiks forth with more inflammatory nonsense. Where exactly is the "lie", i.e. intentional falsehood in the above? The statement quoted is perfectly true. There may have been an unintentional faulty deduction from it (that's if the abusive and scientifically illiterate BA is right), but even that presupposes certain fairly recent phylogenetic schemes that place the birds in the Archosauromorpha as opposed to separating the birds and reptiles.

I hate to say it but I side with Socrates... this was a matter of incompetence, not fabrication.

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here
Socrates:

So this computer person and non-scientist BaldApe spruiks forth with more inflammatory nonsense. Where exactly is the "lie", i.e. intentional falsehood in the above? The statement quoted is perfectly true. There may have been an unintentional faulty deduction from it (that's if the abusive and scientifically illiterate BA is right), but even that presupposes certain fairly recent phylogenetic schemes that place the birds in the Archosauromorpha as opposed to separating the birds and reptiles.

Are you saying Dr. Safarti knows less about the phylogenetic tree than I, a non-scientist, do? Keep in mind, he has a PhD. Are you implying that he only wrote this out of sheer ignorance? Are you reading his quote in some context whereby he was not explicitly implying that croc DNA more strongly resembling chicken DNA than snake DNA was evidence against evolution? Let me know - I'll retract my accusations in place of any of these alternatives.

Also, you seem to imply that the phylogenetic grouping of croc w/ birds at a higher level than crocs w/ lizard simply occured too recently for our esteemed chemist, Dr. Safarti, to know about it. Well, from Dr. Safarti's credentials:

In 1999, his first book was published_—_Refuting Evolution

. Since the page I originally quoted from was commentary on his book "Refuting Evolution", it must have been written in or after 1999. Can you find a phylogenetic tree from 1999 (or later) which groups snakes and crocodiles together, excluding birds? How about 1995? 1990? Answer me this: just how out-of-date with and ignorant of the theory of evolution was Dr. Safarti before he decided to spout this tripe in his book and on that gutter site - assuming, of course, that he wasn't just lying.

By the way - would you like to try your hand at my 1 question biology quiz?

More likely, the non-scientist Bald Ape has used one proposed phylogenetic scheme to pounce on a fairly en passant comment --- which wasn't a lie anyway. Dr Sarfati has written far more substantial arguments against the dinosaur-to-bird philogenetic scheme which the inflammatory ignoramus BaldApe argues for anyway, e.g. Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ display: Knockdown argument against creation? So it was certainly not a lie, as even QED admits, but not incompetence either, since Dr Sarfati has, with good reason, no time for linking dinosaurs and birds. The atheists on this board must be desperate to start threads like this.

Oh no, Soc - you are probably right that it wasn't a lie, but it was altogether incompetent. The view that birds are theropods goes back many years and is so widely accepted that Safarti would only be able to avoid hearing of it by having his head deep in the sand.

Never mind that Safarti doesn't accept that phylogeny. That makes no difference to the fact that his evidence confirms the most well-accepted evolutionary scheme. That makes his "almost en passant" mention of it as data that contradicts evolution nightmarishly incompetent - to the point that BA can't be blamed for thinking it a likely case of dishonesty. He's giving your boy the benefit of the doubt.

What's given is more an example of gross incompetance than dishonesty. But Sarfati isn't honest either.

"Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...efuting-sg.PDF

• Edited by a Moderator •

Needless to say, the claims that Sarfati makes are consistent with common design regardless of whether or not they are true. • Edited by a Moderator •

Nope, creationis can explain anything and everything. It's religious dogma, not science.

QED prattles on:

• Oh no, Soc - you are probably right that it wasn't a lie, but it was altogether incompetent. The view that birds are theropods goes back many years and is so widely accepted that Safarti would only be able to avoid hearing of it by having his head deep in the sand.

For goodness's sake, I 've already told you that he has heavily criticised this theropods-to-birds nonsense, so how can we take QED seriously for claiming that he hadn't heard of it. But Dr Sarfati, like world bird expert Dr Alan Feduccia, doesn't ACCEPT it, and QED has not shown why he should. He's more concerned with abusive ad hominem arguments against creationists. It might be more productive to list the outright goofs and lies by evolutionists, maybe starting with the Skeptics Museum display.

For goodness's sake, I 've already told you that he has heavily criticised this theropods-to-birds nonsense,

I'll use small words this time: He criticizes theropods to birds as part of his criticism of common descent in general. The data he cites as supportive of his criticism actually supports theropods to birds and common descent in general. We can therefore conclude that there is grevious incompetency, or, if we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt about competency, then deliberate fabrication.

Please stop dodging and weaving. Honestly, I'm sure Dr Safarti would have enough dignity to admit his error.. he would be embarrassed by your behavior on his behalf.

OMG! Socrates! Oh, Socrates! Did you read what else the prestigious Dr. Safarati posted on the gutter website? Tgamble pointed it out, and since I doubt you two are on speaking terms (read: I bet you don't even read his posts anmore), I'll point it out as well. Dr. Safarati, in all is doctoral glory, has published the statement that human lysozomes are closer to chicken lysozomes than they are to any other mammal. One wonders, given that human lysozymes and chimpanzee lysozymes are identical, how any other animal's lysozymes could be closer. Might I add, as if you hadn't already guessed, that the chicken lysozyme is vastly different from humans. Not by a little. By a lot.

I take back the minnow of a fabrication I had originally posted - I'd hate to distract from the 10 pound trout tgamble just landed.

One wonders where Dr. "I can't read a phylogenetic tree" Safarti gets this stuff, and why his competent biochemist peers (e.g. Gish) never paused to correct his embarrassing follies.

Addition: How different are yhuman and chicken lysozyme? How does 50 out of 130 positions being different sound? Who runs that wacky website?

I can't find that in my copy of his book (and one day you might even spell his name right). I wonder if this non-scientist Baldape can try something subtantial for a change. E.g. defend the dino-to-bird theory, including explaining the origin of the avian lung. Otherwise it's a typical evolutionary pettiness to keep whinging about the alleged closeness of one type of reptiles to bird.

Or should I start a thread about Dawkins' probability goof in his comments about a perfect deal in bridge, Plimer's many goofs in many areas, including comfusing the meliting and boiling points of sulfur, National Geographic's goof in promoting the fraud Archaeoraptor as "proof" of the dino-to-bird theory Baldape uncritically accepts but which creationists and Feduccia do not ... Far worse than anything done by any AiG which these non-scientists baldape and tgamble and the appropriately titled sophomoric QED have to desperately whinge about, I would say.

Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati's supposed argument against common decent, in which he points out that the a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of a chicken than that of a viper (their fellow reptiles), (note how he helpfully reminds his readers that they ought to expect opposite results,) is disingenuous at the very least. I'll stop short of saying it's dishonest because it is factually correct. But the intent is dubious.

The statement that tgamble found, that human lysozomes are closer to chicken lysozomes than they are to any other mammal, is simply inexplicable.
Bald Ape:

One wonders, given that human lysozymes and chimpanzee lysozymes are identical, how any other animal's lysozymes could be closer. Might I add, as if you hadn't already guessed, that the chicken lysozyme is vastly different from humans. Not by a little. By a lot.

Would you have a reference for that? I can't find a site with comparative data about lysozomes between species.

Thanks

Soc,

I found it not in the book but in the study guide on AiG.