Replies

Your request doesn't make any sense. What would showing similarities between chicken and human genes or turtle and crocodile genes show?

Human/bird similarities, turtle/crocodile genetic relationships, are readily available but have not falsified 'common descent'. It is simply ignored as having developed after the split.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990217075533.htm
"Previous studies of gene similarities--a relatively newer tool for determining relationships between species--have never agreed with the more traditional anatomical methods on this issue. "Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges, who decided recently to assemble all the genetic data available in order to resolve the question."

Oops, turtles weren't where they were supposed to be genetically. Darwinism is falsified.

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/197/62

"The analysis also showed that genes conserved between human and chicken often are also conserved in fish. For example, 72 percent of the corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes also possess a counterpart in the genome of the puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes). According to the researchers, these genes are likely to be present in most vertebrates."

Humans, chickens and puffer fish share a lot of genetic information. I don't remember Darwinism predicting this. Looks like evolution is falsified.

Those relationships mean nothing. Common descent and evolution are unfalsifiable. Your request is meaningless.

Oops, turtles weren't where they were supposed to be genetically.

The relationship of turtles to other reptiles has always been murky and problematic. (At least the last I'd read up on it.) But there are plenty of cases where the general relationship is clear and compelling. E.g. birds and crocs, versus anything else; e.g. humans and chimps, versus anything else; e.g. (to bring in a more distant relationship) spiders and horseshoe crabs, versus any non-arachnid; etc. There is a large number of such strong cases that the molecular sequence evidence could potentially falsify, but doesn't.

Yes, the molecular evidence has often clarified our understanding of problematic relationships, or even changed our phylogenies at a certain level of detail versus traditional anatomical based phylogenetic schemes. (E.g. showing that humans and chimps form a clade exclusive of gorillas, whereas previously it had been assumed that gorillas and chimps grouped together.)

But there are no clear contradictions in the molecular sequence data to otherwise SECURE inferences about evolutionary relationship, such as that humans and apes group exclusive of other animals, or anything like the other examples I gave.

"The analysis also showed that genes conserved between human and chicken often are also conserved in fish. For example, 72 percent of the corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes also possess a counterpart in the genome of the puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes). According to the researchers, these genes are likely to be present in most vertebrates."

Humans, chickens and puffer fish share a lot of genetic information. I don't remember Darwinism predicting this. Looks like evolution is falsified.

Uh, so? Some genes are highly conserved. Note this leads to ANOTHER prediction (and potential falsification) of common descent. Genes that are highly conserved in humans, and chickens and puffer fish should also be highly conserved in other vertebrate animals as well.

I'll guarantee though that, however highly conserved relative to other genes, no given gene is MORE similar between humans and puffer fish than between humans and chickens.

How can I guarantee that this is the case, unless evolution DOES make falsifiable predictions?