International team maps 'big bang' of bird evolution

Mapping the tree of life
Scientists completed the largest whole genome study of a single class of animals to date by mapping the tree of life for birds. Avian genetic samples from Louisiana State University's Museum of Natural Science, which has one of the largest vertebrate tissue collections in the world, were used for this study. Credit: Eddy Perez, LSU University Relations

The genomes of modern birds tell a story of how they emerged and evolved after the mass extinction that wiped out dinosaurs and almost everything else 66 million years ago. That story is now coming to light, thanks to an ambitious international collaboration that has been underway for four years.

The first findings of the Avian Phylogenomics Consortium are being reported nearly simultaneously in 29 papers—eight papers in a Dec. 12 special issue of Science and 21 more in Genome Biology, GigaScience and other journals. The full set of papers in Science and other journals can be accessed at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6215/1308.

Scientists already knew that the birds who survived the mass extinction experienced a rapid burst of evolution. But the of modern birds has confused biologists for centuries and the molecular details of how birds arrived at the spectacular biodiversity of more than 10,000 is barely known.

To resolve these fundamental questions, a consortium led by Guojie Zhang of the National Genebank at BGI in China and the University of Copenhagen, Erich D. Jarvis of Duke University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and M. Thomas P. Gilbert of the Natural History Museum of Denmark, has sequenced, assembled and compared full genomes of 48 bird species. The species include the crow, duck, falcon, parakeet, crane, ibis, woodpecker, eagle and others, representing all major branches of modern birds.

"BGI's strong support and four years of hard work by the entire community have enabled us to answer numerous fundamental questions to an unprecedented scale," said Guojie Zhang. "This is the largest whole genomic study across a single vertebrate class to date. The success of this project can only be achieved with the excellent collaboration of all the consortium members."

"Although an increasing number of vertebrate genomes are being released, to date no single study has deliberately targeted the full diversity of any major vertebrate group," added Tom Gilbert. "This is precisely what our consortium set out to do. Only with this scale of sampling can scientists truly begin to fully explore the genomic diversity within a full vertebrate class."

"This is an exciting moment," said neuroscientist Erich Jarvis. "Lots of fundamental questions now can be resolved with more from a broader sampling. I got into this project because of my interest in birds as a model for vocal learning and speech production in humans, and it has opened up some amazing new vistas on brain evolution."

This first round of analyses suggests some remarkable new ideas about bird evolution. The first flagship paper published in Science presents a well-resolved new family tree for birds, based on whole-genome data. The second flagship paper describes the big picture of genome evolution in birds. Six other papers in the special issue of Science describe how vocal learning may have independently evolved in a few bird groups and in the human brain's speech regions; how the sex chromosomes of birds came to be; how birds lost their teeth; how crocodile genomes evolved; ways in which singing behavior regulates genes in the brain; and a new method for phylogenic analysis with large-scale genomic data.

The Avian Phylogenomics Consortium has so far involved more than 200 scientists hailing from 80 institutions in 20 countries, including the BGI in China, the University of Copenhagen, Duke University, the University of Texas at Austin, the Smithsonian Museum, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Louisiana State University and many others.

A Clearer Picture of the Bird Family Tree

Previous attempts to reconstruct the avian family tree using partial DNA sequencing or anatomical and behavioral traits have met with contradiction and confusion. Because modern birds split into species early and in such quick succession, they did not evolve enough distinct genetic differences at the genomic level to clearly determine their early branching order, the researchers said. To resolve the timing and relationships of modern birds, the consortium authors used whole-genome DNA sequences to infer the bird species tree.

"In the past, people have been using 10 to 20 genes to try to infer the species relationships," Jarvis said. "What we've learned from doing this whole-genome approach is that we can infer a somewhat different phylogeny [family tree] than what has been proposed in the past. We've figured out that protein-coding genes tell the wrong story for inferring the species tree. You need non-coding sequences, including the intergenic regions. The protein coding sequences, however, tell an interesting story of proteome-wide convergence among species with similar life histories."

This new tree resolves the early branches of Neoaves (new birds) and supports conclusions about some relationships that have been long-debated. For example, the findings support three independent origins of waterbirds. They also indicate that the common ancestor of core landbirds, which include songbirds, parrots, woodpeckers, owls, eagles and falcons, was an apex predator, which also gave rise to the giant terror birds that once roamed the Americas.

The whole-genome analysis dates the evolutionary expansion of Neoaves to the time of the mass extinction event 66 million years ago that killed off all dinosaurs except some birds. This contradicts the idea that Neoaves blossomed 10 to 80 million years earlier, as some recent studies suggested.

Based on this new genomic data, only a few bird lineages survived the . They gave rise to the more than 10,000 Neoaves species that comprise 95 percent of all bird species living with us today. The freed-up ecological niches caused by the extinction event likely allowed rapid species radiation of birds in less than 15 million years, which explains much of modern bird biodiversity.

Increasingly sophisticated and more affordable genomic sequencing technologies and the advent of computational tools for reconstructing and comparing whole genomes have allowed the consortium to resolve these controversies with better clarity than ever before, the researchers say.

International team maps 'big bang' of bird evolution
Duke researchers led by associate professor of neurobiology Erich Jarvis, left, did most of the DNA extraction from bird tissue samples used in the Avian Phylogenomics Consortium. (l-r: Carole Parent, Nisarg Dabhi, Jason Howard). Credit: Duke Photography - Les Todd

With about 14,000 genes per species, the size of the datasets and the complexity of analyzing them required several new approaches to computing evolutionary family trees. These were developed by computer scientists Tandy Warnow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Siavash Mirarab, a student at the University of Texas at Austin and Alexis Stamatakis at the Heidelburg Institute for Theoretical Studies. Their algorithms required the use of parallel processing supercomputers at the Munich Supercomputing Center (LRZ), the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) and the San Diego Supercomputing center (SDSC).

"The computational challenges in estimating the avian species tree used around 300 years of CPU time, and some analyses required supercomputers with a terabyte of memory," Warnow said.

The bird project also had support from the Genome 10K Consortium of Scientists (G10K), an international science community working toward rapidly assessing genome sequences for 10,000 vertebrate species.

"The Avian Genomics Consortium has accomplished the most ambitious and successful project that the G10K Project has joined or endorsed," said G10K co-leader Stephen O'Brien, who co-authored a commentary on the bird sequencing project appearing in GigaScience.

A Genomic Perspective of Avian Evolution and Biodiversity

For all their biological intricacies, birds are surprisingly light on DNA. A study led by Zhang, Cai Li and the consortium authors found that compared to other reptile genomes, avian genomes contain fewer of the repeating sequences of DNA and lost hundreds of genes in their early evolution after birds split from other reptiles.

"Many of these genes have essential functions in humans, such as in reproduction, skeleton formation and lung systems," Zhang said. "The loss of these key genes may have a significant effect on the evolution of many distinct phenotypes of birds. This is an exciting finding, because it is quite different from what people normally think, which is that innovation is normally created by new genetic material, not the loss of it. Sometimes, less is more."

From the whole chromosome level to the order of genes, this group found that the genomic structure of birds has stayed remarkably the same among species for more than 100 million years. The rate of gene evolution across all bird species is also slower compared to mammals.

Yet some genomic regions display relatively faster evolution in species with similar lifestyles or phenotypes, such as involving vocal learning. This pattern of what is called convergent evolution may be the underlying mechanism that explains how distant bird species evolved similar phenotypes independently. Zhang said these analyses on particular gene families begin to explain how birds evolved a lighter skeleton, a distinct lung system, dietary specialties, color vision, as well as colorful feathers and other sex-related traits.

Important Lessons

The new studies have shed light on several other questions about birds, including:

How did vocal learning evolve? Eight studies in the package examined the subject of vocal learning. According to new evidence in the two flagship papers, vocal learning evolved independently at least twice, and was associated with convergent evolution in many proteins. A Science study led by Andreas Pfenning, Alexander Hartemink, Jarvis and others at Duke, in collaboration with researchers at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle and the RIKEN Institute in Japan, found that the specialized song-learning brain circuitry of birds (songbirds, parrots and hummingbirds) and human brain speech regions have convergent changes in the activity of more than 50 genes. Most of these genes are involved in forming neural connections. Osceola Whitney, Pfenning and Anne West, also of Duke, found in another Science study that singing is associated with the activation of 10 percent of the expressed genome, with diverse activation patterns in different song-learning regions of the brain, controlled by epigenetic regulation of the genome. Duke's Mukta Chakraborty and others found in a PLoS ONE study that parrots have a song system within a song system, with the surrounding song system unique to them. This might explain their greater ability to imitate human speech. In a BMC Genomics study, Morgan Wirthlin, Peter Lovell and Claudio Mello from Oregon Health & Science University found unique genes in the song-control brain regions of songbirds.

The XYZW of sex chromosomes. Just as the sex of humans is determined by the X and Y chromosomes, the sex of birds is controlled by the Z and W chromosomes. The W makes birds female, just as the Y makes humans male. Most mammals share a similar evolutionary history of the Y chromosome, which now contains many degenerated genes that no longer function and only a few active genes related to "maleness." A Science study led by Qi Zhou and Doris Bachtrog from the University of California, Berkeley, and Zhang found that half of bird species still contain substantial numbers of active genes in their W chromosomes. This challenges the classic view that the W chromosome is a "graveyard of genes" like the human Y.

This group also found that bird species are at drastically different states of sex chromosome evolution. For example, the ostrich and emu, which belong to one of the older branches of the bird family tree, have sex chromosomes resembling their ancestors. Yet some modern birds such as the chicken and zebra finch have sex chromosomes that contain few active genes. This opens a new set of questions on how the diversity of sex chromosomes may drive the diversity of sex differences in the outward appearance of various bird species. Peacocks and peahens are dramatically different; male and female crows are indistinguishable.

How did birds lose their teeth? In a Science study led by Robert Meredith from Montclair State University and Mark Springer from the University of California, Riverside, a comparison between the genomes of living bird species and those of vertebrate species that have teeth identified key mutations in the parts of the genome that code for enamel and dentin, the building blocks of teeth. The evidence suggests that five tooth-related genes were disabled within a short time period in the common ancestor of more than 100 million years ago.

What's the connection between birds and dinosaurs? Unlike mammals, birds (along with reptiles, fish and amphibians) have a large number of tiny microchromosomes. These smaller packages of gene-rich material are thought to have been present in their dinosaur ancestors. A study of genome karyotype structure in BMC Genomics analyzed whole genomes of the chicken, turkey, Peking duck, zebra finch and budgerigar. It found the chicken has the most similar overall chromosome pattern to an avian ancestor, which was thought to be a feathered dinosaur. This work was led by Darren Griffin and Michael Romanov from the University of Kent, and by Dennis Larkin and Marta Farré from the Royal Veterinary College, University of London.

Another study in Science examined birds' closest living relatives, the crocodiles. This team, led by Ed Green and Benedict Paton from the University of California, Santa Cruz, David Ray from Texas Tech University and Ed Braun from the University of Florida, found that crocodiles have one of the slowest-evolving genomes. The researchers were able to infer the genome sequence of the common ancestor of birds and crocodilians (archosaurs) and therefore all dinosaurs, including those that went extinct 66 million years ago.

Do differences in gene trees versus species trees matter? In the phylogenomics flagship study by Jarvis and others, the consortium found that no gene tree has a history exactly the same as the species tree, partly due to a process called incomplete lineage sorting. Another Science study, led by Tandy Warnow at the University of Texas and the University of Illinois, and her student Siavash Mirarab, developed a new computational approach called "statistical binning." They used this approach to show it does not matter much that the gene trees differ from the species tree because they were able to infer the first coalescent-based, genome-scale species tree, combining gene trees with similar histories to accurately infer a species tree.

Do bird genomes carry fewer virus sequences than other species? Mammalian genomes harbor a diverse set of genomic "fossils" of past viral infections called "endogenous viral elements" (EVEs). A study published in Genome Biology led by Jie Cui of Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School in Singapore, Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney and Zhang, found that bird species had 6-13 times fewer EVE infections in their past than mammals. This finding is consistent with the fact that birds have smaller genomes than mammals. It also suggests birds may either be less susceptible to viral invasions or better able to purge viral genes.

When did colorful feathers evolve? Elaborate, colorful feathers are thought to be evolutionarily advantageous, giving a male bird in a given species an edge over his competitors when it comes to mating. Zhang's flagship paper in Science, which is further analyzed by Matthew Greenwold and Roger Sawyer from the University of South Carolina in a companion study in BMC Evolutionary Biology, found that genes involved in feather coloration evolved more quickly than other genes in eight of 46 bird lineages. Waterbirds have the lowest number of beta keratin feather genes, landbirds have more than twice as many, and in domesticated pet and agricultural , there are eight times more of these genes.

What happens to species facing extinction or recovering from near-extinction? Birds are like the proverbial canaries in the coal mine because of their sensitivity to environmental changes that cause extinction. In a Genome Biology study led by Shengbin Li, Cheng Cheng and Jun Yu from Xi'an Jiaotong University and Jarvis, researchers analyzed the genomes of species that have recently gone nearly extinct, including the crested ibis in Asia and the bald eagle in the Americas. They found genes that break down environmental toxins have a higher rate of mutations in these species and there is lower diversity of immune system genes in endangered species. In a recovering crested ibis population, genes involved in brain function and metabolism are evolving more rapidly. The researchers found more genomic diversity in the recovering population than was expected, giving greater hope for species conservation.

The Start of Something Bigger

This sweeping genome-level comparison of an entire class of life is being powered by frozen bird tissue samples collected over the past 30 years by museums and other institutions around the world. Samples are sent as fingernail-sized chunks of frozen flesh mostly to Duke University and University of Copenhagen for DNA separation. Most of the genome sequencing and critical initial analyses of the genomes have then been conducted by the BGI in China.

The avian genome consortium is now creating a database that will be made publicly available in the future for scientists to study the genetic basis of complex avian traits.

Setting up the pipeline for the large-scale study of whole genomes—collecting and organizing tissue samples, extracting the DNA, analyzing its quality, sequencing and managing torrents of new data—has been a massive undertaking. But the scientists say their work should help inform other major efforts for the comprehensive sequencing of vertebrate classes. To encourage other researchers to dig through this 'big data' and discover new patterns that were not seen in small-scale data before, the avian genome consortium has released the full dataset to the public in GigaScience, and in NCBI, ENSEMBL and CoGe databases.

Under the leadership of Dave Burt, the National Avian Research Facility at the Roslin Institute and Edinburgh University, UK, has created genome browser databases based on the ENSEMBL model for 48 species.


Explore further

Dinosaur family tree gives fresh insight into rapid rise of birds

More information: www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6215/1308
Journal information: Science , GigaScience , Genome Biology

Provided by Duke University
Citation: International team maps 'big bang' of bird evolution (2014, December 11) retrieved 26 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-international-team-big-bird-evolution.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

yep
Dec 11, 2014
If evolution is false why do we have so many transitional forms in fossil record?
How is it so many organisms have homologous structures at the genetic and anatomical level that seem to be derived from common ancestors?
How is it we can use artificial selection to clearly demonstrate dramatic physiological change but natural selection is not evidence? Just in our own lifetimes we have seen rapid evolution as organisms adapt to changing the ecology.
What is your explanation for these nested hierarchies?
My final question, and one I have asked you before without response is, what is your alternate theory if evolution is bogus?
Thank you.

Dec 11, 2014
@verkle

It is so funny that such a long article can talk about evolution as if it were true, make gross assumptions and conclusions based on something that has never been observed in all scientific research and observation in the past 150 years. A bogus theory. Pseudo science.


Verkle:; Definition: The most ignorant and stupid commentator to post on Phys.org. Quite an accomplishment considering his competition.

Dec 11, 2014
@yep

"what is your alternate theory if evolution is bogus?"

The Bible.

Dec 11, 2014
@Verkle
Evolution was occurring long before your god was invented and will be continuing long after it is forgotten.

Dec 12, 2014
@yep Evolution is just a theory, and can neither be definitively proved or disproved because of the numerous uncertainties associated with it. It's quite hilarious to watch evolutionist create factually unsound arguments and dilute others with their fallacies based off of false logic. It is getting old and far beyond the point of annoying. First off, in a debate, it is very common to hide one's blatant insecurities, regarding their argument, with a slew of questions attacking another's. Second, the notion of evolution is true to some extent (E.g. microevolution). Macroevolution, however, has very little supporting facts and is not proven at all by "transitional forms in fossil record[s]." There have been actual causes where forged data changed the overall outcome of the investigation, further proving biased science does not work. The "rapid evolution" you referred to in the 5th line of your incredibly dull and ignorant concoction of incoherence is greatly dramatized. Review your facts.

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503

We'll add you to the list of willfully ignorant trolls.

Dec 12, 2014
Natural selection is such a perfect mechanism to create life that only the arrogant would claim to have superior wisdom to God and argue against him using evolution.

Dec 12, 2014
Verkle Josh.

Evolution is readily observed all the time. DNA doesn't replicate itself perfectly all the time. What is the consequence of that basic observation?

Different DNA sequences literally means different proteins. Different proteins means different cells. Cells are life. That literally means different life.

All you creationists can't even make an argument, you just say it's wrong in as many ways as your vocabulary allows, but you never address any reasons or points. You can tell me I'm wrong, but what weight does just telling someone they're wrong hold? You need a reason for me to be wrong.

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503
Evolution is just a theory
you should do a little research on what the scientific term "theory" means (you should start here: https://en.wikipe...c_theory )
the term Theory in science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation
as for transitional fossils: http://www.talkor...nal.html
and macro-evolution: http://www.talkor...comdesc/
feel free to refute the linked studies in the links above, there are too many to list again here

to conclude, i will close with your own words
Review your facts
Post script: bible is NOT facts, it is a fallacious document melded from other religions and falsified with historical known facts


Dec 12, 2014
Steve, I would like to disprove the falsely deducted statement you conveyed in your commentary, scattered with the inadequately used "literally." You are incorrect in the sense DNA doesn't perfectly replicate itself in most cases, for proofreading and error correction ensure near-perfect fidelity in replication. I, myself, am wondering what the consequence of that basic observation is, and how it is relates to evolution at all. I assume you were trying to say mutated DNA is a proof of evolution. Sadly, I don't think you full understand what happens to mutated DNA, for the body can not harness it to change its physical attributes. By the way, different DNA sequences do not literally mean different proteins. Different DNA sequences literally means different DNA sequences. In other word, you incorrectly used "literally," to force an already incredibly false argument. If we want to throw poorly supported accusations, I can say all evolutionists lack basic grammatical and vocabulary skills.

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503

I sometimes have accidently miss voted but giving you a 5 is my worst offense. The only objection to the reality of evolution is based on theology not science.

Dec 12, 2014
Thank you so much Captian Stumpy for a list of completely irrelevant and out-of-date article links. The first thing I saw, when I opened the second link, was a last modified date of March 17, 1997, allowing the article little to no credibility at all. This makes me question whether you even read my comment at all, about the revision of your facts. Funny enough, you even quoted it in your heavily ironic commentary. Now for you to take a heavily valued spiritual book, and then attempt to bash it with contradictory statements, is totally unnecessary. To be honest, believing in evolution requires more faith than Christianity, as a collective group of false statements that may contain some truth are the glue for the crumbling structure. Yes, thank you once again for giving MORE links with still minimal credibility, and I agree, evolution is just a theory. You see, theories are created for the sole purpose of explanation, however are not definitively correct. If it were, it would be a law.

Dec 12, 2014
Joshm

You don't understand the role of DNA.

DNA sequences are composed of 4 different molecules. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. That's the code of DNA.

DNA molecules are "unzipped" exposing the end of one of those four molecules I mentioned. While those molecules are exposed various molecules called amino acids are then free to chemically bond to the DNA molecule.

Only specific amino acids can bond to specific sequences of the DNA. As the chain of amino acids grows on the DNA molecule it forms a complex, but specific protein molecule.

Dec 12, 2014
@Vietvet

Ha that's funny! You evolutionists seem to claim a lot of things (or maybe living organisms) to be accidents.

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503

Are you that willfully ignorant?

The evidence is so overwhelming it is hard to keep up with new confirming evidence. Here's a start for you.

http://phys.org/biology-news/

Dec 12, 2014
allowing the article little to no credibility at all
i did not realise there was a date of expiration on relevant science or studies, especially as they are answering the very questions you are arguing against
so what you are saying is that, rather than take the time to refute the science, you will simply say "it is old and thus MUST be wrong"
this is called a strawman argument
Now for you to take a heavily valued spiritual book, and then attempt to bash it with contradictory statements
please show scientific evidence of Moses, the great flood, the subsequent re-population of earth and biodiversity and how it all happened (within reason) considering continents that were locked in by oceans, etc
(AUS)
a collective group of false statements
you have the ability to refute them with proven science, then you should do it
evolution is just a theory
yoru arguments regarding semantics and grammar aside... where is the science supporting your assertions?


Dec 12, 2014
Sadly, I don't think you full understand what happens to mutated DNA, for the body can not harness it to change its physical attributes.

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html
http://phys.org/n...lts.html
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
(you should be reading the comments by Anonymous9001)
however are not definitively correct. If it were, it would be a law
my point is, where is your evidence refuting my evidence?
Linked and referenced in the links i left above are studies with empirical evidence that have passed the test of time as well as peer review in a reputable journal...

all you've given so far is personal conjecture
no equivalent evidence refuting the linked studies

and the reason is simple: there is none
AND
you don't know science or how it works

so, again, i will reiterate your own words
Review your facts

Dec 12, 2014
Hello Steve!

You failed to mention the process the DNA undergoes in order to insure near perfect replication, as well as the habitual probing of the DNA to make sure it stays in pristine order. Still, you sidetracked from the original purpose of my comment, which was to simply question how the mutation of DNA allows for evolution. A red herring fallacy on your part, I suppose?

Dec 12, 2014
post script to little joshm503
1- you also failed to answer ANY of Yep's arguments above
2- you are posting about a religion, which is NOT science. this is a science site and as such, science is usually required to prove a point
3- you do realise that your habitual lying will get you thrown into hell based upon your own religion and its beliefs, as well as the intentional misrepresentation of reality and the universe

why would your sky faerie create this just to put a couple of "practical jokes" within it to undermine knowledge? AND, unless you are Jewish, you are NOT one of the chosen, and thus are a monkey anyway, as specified in your own bible (your own sons of adam got monkey wives, kiddo, so that means you are definitely monkey material)
you sidetracked from the original purpose of my comment, which was to simply question how the mutation of DNA allows for evolution. A red herring fallacy on your part, I suppose?
this is answered two posts up, top 3 links

Dec 12, 2014
you sidetracked from the original purpose of my comment, which was to simply question how the mutation of DNA allows for evolution. A red herring fallacy on your part, I suppose?

just in case you missed this above
again

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html
http://phys.org/n...lts.html
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
(you should be reading the comments by Anonymous9001)

google is free

Dec 12, 2014
I really enjoy the fact you can not defend your claims, so you simply rely on links to do the hard work for you.

To maliciously attack one's personal beliefs is unnecessary and morally wrong. I do not know how all of the sudden you go from evolutionist to God status, and subsequently inherit the jurisdiction over who goes to hell and not. If this cannot be a civil debate, which apparently it is not, I do not want to participate. Of course the final stage of losing an argument is irrefutably the physical attack on one's mental well being as with their way of life. Thank you for highlighting your incompetence in argumentation to everyone, and have a nice and accidentally earned day.

Dec 12, 2014
Joshm

Reread my first comment, you seem to think I was saying that mutations are more common than they are. Also if you're going to call me out on something you should of mentioned the fact that I forgot RNA.

I don't remember how DNA repairs itself, but you seem to be alluding that it is a full proof system, which is blatantly false.

And I did not get side track you specifically said
I, myself, am wondering what the consequence of that basic observation is, and how it is relates to evolution at all. I assume you were trying to say mutated DNA is a proof of evolution. Sadly, I don't think you full understand what happens to mutated DNA, for the body can not harness it to change its physical attributes. By the way, different DNA sequences do not literally mean different proteins.


I was explaining to you how DNA does effect physical attributes, you're wrong, I was trying to teach you something about how proteins are made. That's why DNA is "the code of life"

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503

There is ZERO evidence of creation/intelligent design. There is overwhelming evidence of evolution, any objection is theology based, not scientific.

Dec 12, 2014
@joshm503
your argument is an attempt at redirection from the fact taht you have no evidence as well as strawman fallacy
you had an argument against the Theory of Evolution
I support the science behind said Theory
I presented evidence supporting my position and giving you irrefutable facts
to which your reply is
I really enjoy the fact you can not defend your claims, so you simply rely on links to do the hard work for you
so, if we defend Evolution, we are simply arguing from ignorance? and have grammatical errors?
but if we supply evidence and studies, we are somehow ...what, really?
You are the one ignoring the empirical evidence
To maliciously attack one's personal beliefs is unnecessary and morally wrong
1- RELIGION HAS NO PLACE ON A SCIENCE SITE unless specifically discussing religion
2- YOUR FAITH IS NOTHING BUT UNPROVABLE CONJECTURE, BY DEFINITION

Dec 12, 2014
I do not know how all of the sudden you go from evolutionist to God status, and subsequently inherit the jurisdiction over who goes to hell and not
@josh
it is written in your little book... all i did was point out your own fallacies and show you the "PLANK in your own eye", just like any other preacher
If this cannot be a civil debate, which apparently it is not, I do not want to participate
1- you come here attacking science with your religion but get mad when the reciprocal is done?
2- as long as there are religions, there will never be civil debate

RELIGIONS are designed to segregate, divide and control

now, quit ignoring the empirical evidence and either debunk it with equivalent evidence or go play on your religious site which is accepting of your stupidity
notice i didn't say ignorance... it is because you are IGNORING what has already been proven FOR A RELIGION

that is not ignorance
that is blatant willful stupidity


Dec 12, 2014
losing an argument is
@josh
it was YOU who lost the argument!

you never ANSWERED THE FIRST QUESTION

you attacked Steve and Yep and anyone else who believed in evolution, and now that there is EVIDENCE refuting your claims, you are going to cry about how it is presented and run away?

because you don't like me?
and that is supposed to hurt my feelings?

YOU ARE THE ONE PROMOTING PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science
Thank you for highlighting your incompetence in argumentation to everyone
if there is ONE thing i learned watching you creationist TROLLS, it is that you have NO feelings for anyone else, so don't even think about trying to play up to my sympathies

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THOSE WHO PROMOTE PSEUDOSCIENCE OVER SCIENCE

PERIOD

you came here to TROLL and push anti-science agenda with religious overtones
that is pseudoscience
you refused to even acknowledge the relevant science -it was old, you said
it's never been refuted

you're a religious TROLL

Dec 12, 2014
joshm503 said
First off, in a debate, it is very common to hide one's blatant insecurities, regarding their argument, with a slew of questions attacking another's
you mean like THIS from the same post?
The "rapid evolution" you referred to in the 5th line of your incredibly dull and ignorant concoction of incoherence is greatly dramatized
or what about these?
a list of completely irrelevant and out-of-date article links...
a last modified date of March 17, 1997, allowing the article little to no credibility at all...
MORE links with still minimal credibility...
A red herring fallacy on your part...
you go from evolutionist to God status...
Thank you for highlighting your incompetence in argumentation...
you start out blatantly lying, attacking with your own fallacies you condemn others for, posting from a known fallacious source (bible)

thanks for pointing out your strategy for us, btw

just wait till Otto gets a hold of you!

Dec 12, 2014
It is so funny that such a long article can talk about evolution as if it were true, make gross assumptions and conclusions based on something that has never been observed in all scientific research and observation in the past 150 years. A bogus theory. Pseudo science.

Heard about bird flu? Ebola maybe? ;)
Do you have any instance of true "Science" that you could show us (that does not involve a bearded guy creating stuff from nothing in seven days of course).

Salute your Imam from my part.

Dec 12, 2014
I found a related article with a link to a lot of supporting studies.

http://www.scienc...08.short

Dec 12, 2014
As it seems like many people on this site do not understand how one species of animal can evolve into another species I though it best to give a simple example of evolution in progress.

Imagine a small bird with a medium length beak living in a forested habitat where it eats berries from small bushes. When the bird breads with another bird of the same species their DNA is combined to create a nest full of new birds of the same species. As all the new birds are a combination of the parents DNA plus some small mutations the new birds will vary slightly, some will have longer beaks some will have shorter beaks. When the young birds grow up there is too many bird in their local habitat so some birds move north, some south.

(Continued in next post)

Dec 12, 2014
The birds who move north find that the bushes producing the buries that they eat have small spines on making it difficult to reach the buries. In this environment the birds which have a longer beak due to mutation of their DNA get more food and survive but the birds with smaller beaks struggle to feed and die. When the next breeding season comes about the birds with longer beaks are the only surviors and they bread creating new birds. Some with even longer beaks some still with the same size beaks as their parents. Each generation the birds who moved north develop longer beaks as birds with longer beaks are more successful in gathering food and therefore are stronger and more desirable in breading season.

(Continued in next post)

Dec 12, 2014
Now if we look at the birds who origionally moved south, they find the habitat becomes more open and the food sources available to them becomes little nuts on open trees. The birds with the shorter beaks find it easier to peck out the nuts get fatter, stronger and more desirable to the female birds. When it comes to breeding time the birds with shorter beaks are more successful, producing more offsping which are statisitcally more likely to have the same short beak, some have even shorter beaks which make their food gathering skills more successful preparing them well for next breeding season. As the birds from the south move further south the shorter beak keeps becoming an advantage so each of the offspring with shorter beaks breeds more successfully driving each generation of the birds group to get even shorter beaks.

(continued in next post)

Dec 12, 2014
Fifty year later we look at a bird from each of the habitats. The birds still living in the original habitat have not changed much, they still have a medium sized beak to eat the berries from the bush where they live and are clearly the same species. The birds to the north now have a long beak which they use to reach between the prickly bushes to get berries. They looks so different from the original birds that they can now be called a different species of the original type of bird. The birds to the south now have a really short, hard beak, great for eating nuts, their most abundant food source, breaking the nuts also requires more muscle strength so the stronger birds also had an advantage, because of this the birds to the south are bigger, stronger and have shorter beaks. They are so different from their ancestors that they can also be called a different species.

(continued in next post)

Dec 12, 2014
This is evolution, the survival of the animal most suited to its environment along with small changes to its shape, size or intelligence due to the combination of its parents DNA and mutation during the process of conception.

This happens for all animals and with enough time and variation in environment a big change can be seen between different animals even if they had the same ancestor.

Hope this clears up evolution to all those creationists.

Dec 12, 2014
It is so funny that such a long article can talk about evolution as if it were true, make gross assumptions and conclusions based on something that has never been observed in all scientific research and observation in the past 150 years. A bogus theory. Pseudo science.


Let me ask you something. Do you believe Abraham Lincoln existed? Why?

Here's your problem sir. You think that something has to be proved in front of your face in order to believe in it...which is hysterically ironic given the fact that you're likely religious and your most deeply held world views can NEVER be proven...in fact you wear that as a badge of honor. "I believe in something that can't be proven, and therefore I have big time spiritual mojo with the head sky fairy! But don't ask me to believe anything RATIONAL unless it can be demonstrated right before my eyes!!!".

Do you believe the Earth at some point didn't exist and then was formed? Why the hell would you believe in something like that?

Dec 16, 2014
Hell of a study. Conclusions make sense with already known data. Really interesting.

The comments instead are sad: ignorant/fanatic people talking nonsense and some patient ones trying to argue with them. It's worthless.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more