Followup to “dragons and microbes” post

| 68 Comments

I discussed here new research on venom evolution that topples some old conventional wisdom. It seems this and another study are already making waves in that field. Genealogy of Scaly Reptiles Rewritten by New Research

The most comprehensive analysis ever performed of the genetic relationships among all the major groups of snakes, lizards, and other scaly reptiles has resulted in a radical reorganization of the family tree of these animals, requiring new names for many of the tree’s new branches. The research, reported in the current issue of the journal C. R. Biologies, was performed by two biologists working at Penn State University: S. Blair Hedges, professor of biology, and Nicolas Vidal, a postdoctoral fellow in Hedges’ research group at the time of the research who now is a curator at the National Museum in Paris.

Vidal and Hedges collected and analyzed the largest genetic data set ever assembled for the scaly reptiles known as squamates. The resulting family tree has revealed a number of surprising relationships. For example, “The overwhelming molecular-genetic evidence shows that the primitive-looking iguanian lizards are close relatives of two of the most advanced lineages, the snakes on the one hand and the monitor lizards and their relatives on the other,” Vidal says.

“We gave this group the new name, ‘Toxicofera’ because of another discovery, reported in a related paper, that some lizard species thought to be harmless actually produce toxic venom, as do some snakes–including some large monitor lizards in the same family as the giant Komodo Dragon and some large species of iguanians.” Vidal, Hedges, and other researchers report this and other discoveries about the early evolution of the venom system in lizards and snakes in a paper led by Bryan G. Fry, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, published in the current issue of the journal Nature. “It’s a really startling thing that so many supposedly harmless lizards actually are venomous,” Vidal comments, “but their sharing of this characteristic makes sense now that our genetic studies have shown how closely they are related.”

(More info at the link).

This is a great example of how science works. Important new findings have come to light, and the rest of the evidence is re-examined in that light, to see what stays and what thinking may need to be revised. No one expects it to happen overnight, and a call is put out for others to investigate and test the new conclusions:

“Because the current tree has been widely accepted for nearly a century, I think there is going to be a delay of maybe a few years before the general scientific community gets used to the new tree,” Vidal says. “If other research groups working in this area find the same pattern with additional genes, then I believe the scientific community may accept these results more quickly.”

Note how there are no politics involved, no pressure to teach these new results. The investigators are confident enough in their own data that they can wait for other scientists to examine it, express skepticism, test it themselves, and add their own conclusions to the scientific literature. It may take several years, but if the data stand up and are repeated by others, the way students are taught *will* change–not because anyone was lobbied to do so, but because the evidence is strong and it would be folly not to acknowledge that. I look forward to following this in the coming years.

68 Comments

Do these guys plan to go before the Ohio State Board of Education to argue their results?

It’s crazy, I know: But perhaps someone in Ohio should urge that the Board hold a hearing on these results. The same in Kansas. Wouldn’t it be delicious to see the creationists squirm?

Tara Smith Wrote:

It may take several years, but if the data stand up and are repeated by others, the way students are taught *will* change—not because anyone was lobbied to do so, but because the evidence is strong and it would be folly not to acknowledge that. I look forward to following this in the coming years.

Tara, while I applaud your optimism, I note two things: (1) you mention the need to “repeat” this work. That’s going to take time. And.…it might be then that “controversy” sets in. Which means that this might not be “taught” for some time. But, let’s assume all goes well. Then (2) you’ll note that the “primitive-looking iguanian lizards are close relatives of two of the most advanced lineages, the snakes on the one hand and the monitor lizards and their relatives on the other.” This would seem to imply that “scientists”, for at least the last century, have made all kinds of judgments based on what things “looked like.” How much more is there, then, that is assumed to be the “way things are” and yet is based on simplistic, subjective judgments? While you might laud this “scientific” approach to knowledge, it points out that a lot of paleontology just might turn out to be built on a house of cards.

And, to RDLenny Flank, again, did you notice they’ve now found “venom” genes in lizards?! And what about amphibians–they’re likely candidates for venom. If found in amphibians as well, then that pushes us back to the fishes. Could it be that there are some fish out there that also produce venom? Where will it all end?

Where does this leave the Agamids, like my little Mali Uromastyx? I know they used to be considered a sister taxa to Iguanas based off morphology similarities, but is that still the case?

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 148, byte 148 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

How do you get the quote tag to work??? I can’t seem to figure it out for some reason.

Anyhow,

Blast Said: “Tara, while I applaud your optimism, I note two things: (1) you mention the need to “repeat” this work. That’s going to take time. And.…it might be then that “controversy” sets in. Which means that this might not be “taught” for some time. But, let’s assume all goes well. Then (2) you’ll note that the “primitive-looking iguanian lizards are close relatives of two of the most advanced lineages, the snakes on the one hand and the monitor lizards and their relatives on the other.” This would seem to imply that “scientists”, for at least the last century, have made all kinds of judgments based on what things “looked like.” How much more is there, then, that is assumed to be the “way things are” and yet is based on simplistic, subjective judgments? While you might laud this “scientific” approach to knowledge, it points out that a lot of paleontology just might turn out to be built on a house of cards.”

Scientists had no choice but to classify organisms based on morphology 100 years ago, because molecular/genetic comparison studies weren’t possible until somewhat recently. You can’t expect classical scientists to have considered genetic relationships when assigning animals to various taxa when genetics didn’t even exist at the time.

Also, you must not be familiar with comparative morphology studies because they’re not equivalent to saying “Well A looks like B, so they must be related”. Good morphology studies take multiple morphological features into consideration. Of course, convergent evolution can lead to some uncanny similarities in morphological features of two independently evolved structures, so basing taxonomic relationships strictly on morphology will lead to mistakes.

Blast also said:”And, to RDLenny Flank, again, did you notice they’ve now found “venom” genes in lizards?! And what about amphibians—they’re likely candidates for venom. If found in amphibians as well, then that pushes us back to the fishes. Could it be that there are some fish out there that also produce venom? Where will it all end?”

Not all lizards have venom genes, and since venom is not a trait of the common ancestor of Squamata, it’s evolution can’t be pushed back into amphibians or fish.

Hey Blast Did you ever find out what ailed Parsifal ?

“…built on a house or cards” laments BftP with the falsest of crocodile tears! “Where will it all end?”

[edited by Tara]

We can do without the insults, please.–T

> BlastfromthePast wrote: did you notice they’ve now found “venom” genes in lizards?! And what about amphibians—they’re likely candidates for venom. If found in amphibians as well, then that pushes us back to the fishes. Could it be that there are some fish out there that also produce venom? Where will it all end?

I don’t think you understand where venom comes from. Have a read of our paper in Genome Research earlier this year http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2[…]2_Venome.pdf Venom toxins are not created out of thin air. Rather they are the result of a duplication of a body protein, often one involved in a crucial physiological process such as blood coagulation, this duplicate is then selectively expressed in the venom gland followed by subsequent venom gland specific diversification of the gene. The toxic mutants are used to catastrophically disrupt the physiology of the prey item.

We already have venomous fish, such as catfish, stonefish, stingrays, Port Jackson sharks etc. The venom in fish is an independent evolution, the dorsal and pectoral spines being non-homologous structures relative to the oral venom of reptiles. Similarly, spiders are independent origin, as are scorpions, blue-ring octopus, primate such as slow lorises, other mammals such as shrews and platypus, etc. Venom has been independently evolved in most of the major lineages.

So I utterly fail to see your point. Can you clarify?

Au revoir Bryan

Dr. Fry,

Word up. We are all bettered when clarifications are made in a clarifying way.

Keep on truckin’.

kswiston wrote:

it’s evolution can’t be pushed back into amphibians or fish.

But there are toxic and venomous fish: Puffer fish (fugu in Japan, zombie toxin in “Serpent and the rainbow”), Anemones, the Lionfish… Some Rays have a sharp spine at the end of the tail and poison gland are spaced along the teeth of the spine.

Where do they fit in?

The tetrodotoxin found in puffer fish is also in some toads and in the saliva of the blue-ringed octopus. It inhibits sodium transport, affects neuronal transmission in the central and peripheral nervous system and also cardiac nerve conduction and contraction. I don’t think the toad, puffer fish and octopus are evolutionary cousins.

Hey Blast! Keep up the good work. S&A Red

And, to RDLenny Flank, again, did you notice they’ve now found “venom” genes in lizards?!

And to Blast again, did you notice that none of them are modern snake venoms?

I also noticed that you neglected to bring up the topic with Dr Fry when given the chance —– wassamatter, Blast, afraid that someone who actually studies the topic will show the whole world how pig-ignorant you really are?

C’mon, Blast — go ahead and tell Dr Fry all about your “frontloading” BS. He could use the laugh, and the rest of us would thoroughly enjoy watching your pompous little tookus getting kicked across the room.

Coward.

I don’t think you understand where venom comes from.

Actually, Blast thinks that YOU (and ll other “evolutionoists) don’t understand. See, Blast has been reading some hundred-year-old science (Goldschmidt, mostly) along with his Dembski religious tracts, so Blast has convinced himself that there are really no “new” genes — they are all just different combinations of the genes that were originally present in each “kind” (or maybe in the first life form – Blast is a little vague about that). So, Blast has convinced himself that the venom genes in amphibians, fish, lizards and snakes are all just THE VERY SAME GENES, re-arranged a bit in each species.

Blast calls this “frontloading”.

G’head, Blast. Tell Dr Fry all about it. (snicker) (giggle)

I guess I’ll answer Blast once again, because he takes what might be valid points, and instead uses them for purposes of innuendo without ever coming out and identifying his objective.

This would seem to imply that “scientists”, for at least the last century, have made all kinds of judgments based on what things “looked like.”

Not “all kinds of judgments” but rather “best fit” tentative organization based on the best data available at the time. I THINK Blast is trying to imply (without actually saying it) that these weren’t really scientists (otherwise why the scare quotes?), that they were plain guessing, and that this new information illustrates that their guesses were worthless. By extension, *anything* based on the best observations available at the time are worthless guesses, showing that evidence is a worthless foundation on which to base conviction.

How much more is there, then, that is assumed to be the “way things are” and yet is based on simplistic, subjective judgments?

We tentatively (a concept mystical to Blast) classify things according to what we have learned. There’s always more to learn, and classifications are always subject to change. This is the only way ever devised to get things more nearly correct. But if the evidence points (tentatively but strongly) in one direction, why is it “simplistic” and “subjective” to conclude that the evidence MEANS something, subject to more and better evidence perhaps leading to different, better-informed *but still tentative* conclusions? Blast is assuming the need (his own need) for absolutes. Oops, better evidence indicates that some tentative conclusions weren’t entirely correct. For Blast, this means they were absolutely wrong. For Blast, “totally wrong” is the ONLY alternative to the kind of perfect knowledge that evidence cannot provide, but faith can.

While you might laud this “scientific” approach to knowledge, it points out that a lot of paleontology just might turn out to be built on a house of cards.

And there we are. If it’s not absolutely correct, beyond any even theoretical possibility of improvement, then it’s a “house of cards.” I can only suggest to Blast that a scientific paleontologist is ALWAYS looking for something better. Science, as a discipline, *assumes* that every bit of our knowledge is imperfect. Otherwise, why bother looking at all? Why not just grab any handy scripture, declare ourselves an interpretation and worship it? That’s the key to absolutes, after all – we would be both absolutely certain, and absolutely wrong. Absolutely forever.

limpidense, your reply to Blast is offensive. If you can’t contribute pure reason, that’s OK. Lots of people can’t. Please don’t try to compensate by making personal attacks.

A poster calling himself Blastfromthepast said:

This would seem to imply that “scientists”, for at least the last century, have made all kinds of judgments based on what things “looked like.” How much more is there, then, that is assumed to be the “way things are” and yet is based on simplistic, subjective judgments? While you might laud this “scientific” approach to knowledge, it points out that a lot of paleontology just might turn out to be built on a house of cards.

Simplistic and subjective? No, not at all. Judgments based on the best information available.

And tell us, Mr. Blastfromthepast: What has been the harm of making those judgments in the past? The only issue here is exactly how closely some reptilians are related to other reptilians. The new information just makes our research more accurate – it doesn’t mean anything in the past was inaccurate.

At worst, the previously-thought lines of relationship may have prevented us from seeing relationships that might make for future family-based antivenins. With new knowledge, we may be able to speed development of antidotes for venom, or find new applications for natural substances to make new pharmaceuticals.

Where, do you claim, was there any harm in getting the answers close before, but not exactly right? Are arguing that we should never claim anything as known unless everything is known? Can we not claim your sibling as the product of your shared parents unless we test all 6 billion other people on Earth to make sure no one is more closely related?

Blastfromthepast, you seem to be confusing a few things. Past arrangements were undertaken using the best tools of the time. The Human Genome Project has been the classic leading edge customer, making technology (that fifteen years ago was science fiction) affordable to ordinary researchers. Thus, we are currently in a major taxonomical ‘cleanup’ era. The DNA studies allow for additional insights into the evolution of the animals.

Of course, if someone doesn’t believe in evolution this will all be lost to them.

Cheers Bryan

kswiston, to make a quote:

<quote> Text to quote </quote>

or

<quote author="some guy"> Text to quote </quote>

And don’t put in any tag called “KwickXML”.

Unfortunately, this does decide to ignore or overwrite nomenclature established for other authors that anyone familiar with “supraordinal” taxonomy of mammals may be familiar with. Terms like Scleroglossa, Scincomorpha, Lacertoidea, Teiioidea, and Scincoidea are largely ignored. Vidal and Hedges similarly replaced some potential definitions of names with new terms, instead of just using the existing term for the position they gave. Scinciformata is the same as Scincoidea, Teiiformata is the same as Teiioidea when the content of the groups are evaluated. Their reasoning almost solely based on the implication that “oidea” and “formata” suggest different things to the readers. The analysis is also the same as that published in Fry et al., of which Vidal was a coauthor, so it is likely the gene expert S. Blair Hedges was recruited to publish on the phylogeny and nomenclature, as well as the broader implications of the analysis, based on nuclear genes including one of the Hox genes.

I am curious if anyone knows of HOX genes used in other analyses.

Finally a controversy I know something about! kswiston, I think Michael Hopkins is all wrong. Use “blockquote” instead. :) (I didn’t even know about “quote”; That’ll save me a lot of typing.)

A BLAST calling himself POSTfromthepast said:

This would seem to imply that “scientistsFundamentalist’s(literal readers of Genesis)”, for at least the last century, have made all kinds of judgments statements of fact based on what things “looked like.are” How much more is there, then, that is assumed known to be the “way things are were” and yet is based on simplistic, subjectiveobjectivist* judgments? While you might laud this “scientificLITERAL READING OF GENESIS” approach to knowledge truth, it points out that a lot of paleontology GENESIS and “The WordTM, just might turn out to be built on a house of cards.

Thank you POSTfromthe past for those readings from the cognitive dissonance of “The Word”,TM we will stick to the TRUTH.

objectivist 1.Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events. 2.An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.

objectivism = “the idea that all acceptable knowledge must take the form of exact, impersonal, context-neutral ‘facts’” p.1 related to Modernity results in ‘hyper rationalistic technocratic tyranny’ -

“History is Bunk” >>>>”BRAVE NEW WORD” Huxley’s revenge

relativism = the opposite, or ultimate conclusion, where “no knowledge claims of the objectivist kind can be found, there is no true knowledge and rival knowledge claims are incommensurable”. p.1 related to late-Modernity or sometimes Post-Modernity. results in ‘deconstructive irrationalistic nihilism’.

Equal time for the “controversy” >>> “1984” Orwell’s revenge

“false gods= false truth”.

Any theory that purports to be scientific must somehow, at some point, be compared with observations or experiments. According to a 1998 booklet on science teaching issued by the National Academy of Sciences, “it is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world.” Theories that survive repeated testing may be tentatively regarded as true statements about the world. But if there is persistent conflict between theory and evidence, the former must yield to the latter. Jonathan Wells

LimpidDense: Nice riffs! (lessee, Twain, ???, Parker? or has my tin ear gone rusty?)

Speaking of the taxonomy of toxic species: Where would Blastt fit into the tree? How about that JBHandley twit who just “punk’d” Orac et al? :-)

Posted by David Harmon on November 26, 2005 09:13 AM (e) (s)… Speaking of the taxonomy of toxic species: Where would Blast fit into the tree?…

Blast’s venom is more of an irritant than a poison. So not sure if he could be classified as toxic.

Any theory that purports to be scientific must somehow, at some point, be compared with observations or experiments.

Excpet ID, apparently. After all, IDers do no experiments or observations of any sort to test any of their, uh, scientific hypotheses.

Mostly, all they do is quote-mine the work of scientists who ARE doing experiments and observations. Just like the creation “scientists” did.

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father’s many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin’s theory that living things originated without God’s purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God’s involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th- century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design. God created the cosmos with a plan in mind. This affirmation is among the most basic in all of Christianity (and other theistic religions as well, including Unificationism). And that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God.

–Jonathan Wells, “Darwinism; Why I Went for a Second PhD”http://www.tparents.org/Library/Uni[…]s/DARWIN.htm

Note: By “Father”, Wells is referring to Rev Sun Myung Moon. Yeah, the wacko cult guy. Wells has been a member for over 30 years.

Does that sound even remotely “scientific” to you?

Me neither.

Does it sound like a cult religious crusade against evolutionary biology to you?

Yep, me too.

Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry Wrote:

So I utterly fail to see your point. Can you clarify?

Au revoir Bryan

You’ll have to indulge us, Dr. Fry, but Lenny and I were having, let us say, a little discussion about the results of your work.

I have a very jaundiced opinion of Darwinian evolution, though not to common descent; and I’m sympathetic to ID. One of the things that ID could suggest–and it’s simply hypothetical–is the “front-loading” of genes: that is, that the expressed genes of both pro-and eu-karyotes were there already from the beginning: a “tool box”, if you will. At first glance that might seem preposterous, if not for the fact that the coding portion of DNA is such a small percentage of the total DNA. Let me just add, the idea of this “front-loading” is plausible, maybe even possible, but certainly not anything that ID requires, nor anything for which weighty evidence has been found.

In RDLenny Flank’s attempts to ridicule ID, he has taken the position that if “front-loading” is true, then where is the “gene for snake venom” in other lineages. Actually, if I’m not mistaken, it was the article that you cite that was the cause of our “discussion.” I indicated that (from memory now) your article gave evidence that one type of snake venom is actually a gene for saliva that has been transformed in some way. I used that as a rebuttal, arguing that if venom could be produced by a transformation of existing saliva genes, then maybe looking for snake venom in other genomes is a useless task. In other words, if you looked for “venom”, you wouldn’t find it, for it would simply be “hiding” as a “saliva gene” and no more; and that what would then be critical, would be the possible presence of a regulatory gene controlling that part of the snake genome that codes for the “transformation” of the saliva. (Is the idea of some “transformation” gene, along with its complimentary regulatory gene, present in the various lineages that produce venom, but lying, for the most part, unexpressed, a possibility at all?)

Sorry to drag you into this. I was really just having a little fun with Lenny.

And tell us, Mr. Blastfromthepast: What has been the harm of making those judgments in the past? The only issue here is exactly how closely some reptilians are related to other reptilians. The new information just makes our research more accurate — it doesn’t mean anything in the past was inaccurate.

I’m not throwing rocks at evolutionary theory here. It’s understandable that revision is necessary; and that those who made the conclusions they did, did so with best knowledge and judgment available to them. My words are words of caution. Tara is applauding how evolutionary science works. Fine enough. But there’s this flip side. And that flip side is that a fair amount of “cleaning up” of what is “known” needs to take place. What I’m saying here verges on criticism, but is perhaps not; it is more in the form of an observation which leads to a word of caution.

I’m going to refrain from any further comments on the board lest it gets way off topic. I don’t think that’s fair to Tara.

Dr. Bryan Greig Fry Wrote:

The DNA studies allow for additional insights into the evolution of the animals.

I’m very curious about the search methods you use. Is your method, to take snake venom, e.g., break down the protein into its string of A.A.’s, to then translate that into code, and then finally to search various genomes looking for anything similar (anything “similar” meaning that you use some statistical test for, let us say, “closeness of match”)?

Is that a fair enough assessment of the methods currently being used?

Sorry for the three posts in a row, but I forgot to ask this question.

It’s for anyone, but Dr. Fry, you might have an immediate answer for this: what is the best book on Evo-Devo out there right now?

Dr. Fry, thanks for the “reading assignment”. ;)

Have an educated person explain all the big words to you, Blast.

Assuming you even read it.

After all, we have not forgotten that YOU were the one who wanted to run off at the mouth all about how whale evolution was wrong, but never heard of _Pakicetus_, and then compounded that with another round of verbal diarrhea about bird evolution, while not knowing what _Caudipteryx_ is.

Do you wonder why you get mocked, Blast? Do you wonder why everyone thinks you’re an uninformed blowhard, Blast?

Wonder no longer.

Speaking of birds and Blast, a new Archaeopteryx fossil with exquisitely-preserved feet has been found. In previous finds, the feet were fairly scrunched up. Because there were enough other bird-like features, the less faithfully-preserved feet were assumed to be bird-like as well, with a rear-pointing toe.

It turns out that that toe actually points forward, and is set off to one side, strongly resembling the arrangement of toes of Velociraptor and similar dinosaurs.

Thus, Archaeopteryx turns out to be even more of a mosaic of bird and dino features than previously thought. You might even call it a transitional fossil.

But, new evidence or not, Blast probably won’t. (Shrug.)

Oops, forgot the Archaeopteryxlink:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283203/.

And, note, for all of those who claim that PT’s tone can at times be too harsh, that I said nothing about bird-brains in the prior post…

for all of those who claim that PT’s tone can at times be too harsh,

How on earth can one be “too harsh” towards people who want to (1) destroy science and (2) destroy democracy?

Goodnight, Chet.

Goodnight, David.

Goodnight, Lenny.

Goodnight clocks, and goodnight socks…

Oops, forgot the Archaeopteryxlink:

I’ve already read about it. It seems to make even more of a muddle of bird evolution. From memory, I think they said that it means Archeopteryx is now more likely related to the dromesaurs than to birds. Just more problems for an already problematic area.

There was someone who posted a while back on bird lineages who seemed quite knowledgable, maybe he might want to comment if he’s out there.

From memory, I recall Creationists like Gish claiming that Archeopteryx was a bird, and nothing else. The new fossil with the toes intact shows it to not be a true bird. I think it is a prime example of a transitional fossil.

Blast wrote:It seems to make even more of a muddle of bird evolution. From memory, I think they said that it means Archeopteryx is now more likely related to the dromesaurs than to birds. Just more problems for an already problematic area.

It’s not true at all. It’s an outright dishonest lie! The new data strengthens the link to dinosaurs.

But the Thermopolis specimen, discovered in the Solnhoren region of southeastern Germany, clearly shows that Archaeopteryx’s first toe extends from the side of its foot, like a human thumb, instead of backwards. The middle toe could be extended, and it had a large claw at its tip.

This configuration is similar to some late Jurassic dinosaur families, including the claw-footed Velociraptor and its cousins. As scientists consider Archaeopteryx to be the first known bird, this discovery strengthens the argument that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

It seems to make even more of a muddle of bird evolution.

Says the guy who didn’t know what _Caudipteryx_ was.

Thanks for your, uh, expert opinion, Blast. (snicker) (giggle)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on November 25, 2005 1:36 PM.

Yet another controversy - the Intelligent Deceiver was the previous entry in this blog.

Call for links for the Tangled Bank is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter