Page 162 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences
P. 162

The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences




                   Same Appearance, Different Genes:

                   Asimilar finding emerged with the discovery of a new species of
              salamander in Mexico. The scientists first imagined that they had found a
              specimen of a known salamander, but following DNA analysis they con-
              cluded that they were mistaken. That was because although the appear-
              ance of the soil dwelling salamander they had found was identical to
              known salamanders, genetically it was very different. The National
              Science Foundation announced the following conclusion:
                   The soil dwelling salamander looks identical to one living in moun-
                   tain foothills several hundred miles away. But DNA analysis by NSF-
                   funded zoologists at the University of California at Berkeley shows
                   them to be a distinct species. 4
                   This led to an astonishing conclusion: despite being identical to each
              another, the two creatures had to be classified as different species at the
              genetic level. David Wake of the University of California at Berkeley, the
              biologist in charge of the research, openly stated the conclusion he had
              reached: They are not one another's closest relatives.
                   External similarity does not therefore imply genetic similarity. This
              outcome is surprising to the experts, because the fact that two species are ge-
              netically very different certainly means that they did not evolve from a com-
              mon ancestor, and that there is no phylogenetic relationship between them.
                   In the light of these evaluations, the so-called evolutionary relation-
              ships assumed by evolutionists based on morphological or genetic simi-
              larities have been shown to be invalid. Therefore, all the family trees so
              far drawn up are without scientific foundation and rest solely on evolu-
              tionist preconceptions.



                   1. Cheryl Dybas, Genes of Aquatic Birds Reveal Surprising Evolutionary History, National Science
              Foundation – News Tip, August 1, 2001
                   2. Cheryl Dybas, Genes of Aquatic Birds Reveal Surprising Evolutionary History, National Science
              Foundation – News Tip, August 1, 2001
                   3. Cheryl Dybas, Genes of Aquatic Birds Reveal Surprising Evolutionary History, News Tip,
              August 1, 2001
                   4. Cheryl Dybas, "New" Salamanders Turn Up from DNA Analysis, National Science Foundation –
              News Tip, August 1, 2001




                                              160
   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167