[js1138]

I’m concerned that what’s really going on here is that a lot of interesting questions, poised by the incompatibility of the phylogenic Tree of Life and genetic relations, are about to get swept under the rug... and no-one ever will feel the need to explain why birds, which look to gross anatomists so much like dinosaurs, have DNA much more similar to frogs.

Publishing entire genomes on the internet and providing the tools to make comparisons seems a funny way to sweep things under the rug.

By the way, I think you will find birds more closely related to reptiles than to frogs.

[dangus]

>> Publishing entire genomes on the internet and providing the tools to make comparisons seems a funny way to sweep things under the rug. <<

Gee,really? I said that what was being swept under the rug was why Dinosaurs have DNA more similar to frogs, which was a relationship that was incompatible with traditional, anatomically based phylogeny. And you show me a traditional, anatomically based phylogeny to prove to me that Dinosaur DNA isn’t more similar to frogs???

Incidentally, that’s a great site for illustrating how the anatomically based phylogenists can’t agree on a single clade, isn’t it?