I'm refuted

On another place where I hang out, I suddenly encountered a creationist: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.progressivemuslims.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3742#3742I need to answer this quickly:

quote:

---

And your field is engineering, yes? If so, then you must have had enough time to study the evidence and claim that it does not support macroevolution. Can you show us this decisive evidence that refutes macroevolution?

​

The evidence that refutes macroevolution is, is the lack of evidence and some features of importance in nature (irreducible complex biochemical systems, Cambrian explosion and probably others). But the research project I am calling for is specifically designed to analyse the claims of macro evolutionary genetic change by an analysis of the mechanism and its substrate. You may be interested to help.

​

Can you show me the decisive evidence that proves macroevolution?

---

And this. This creationist, named 'Truthseeker' (no offence to Truthlover) seemed to be quite informed. Lets see if I can get him here...

quote:

---

A brief response to part of Andya's attack on the human evolution chapter of Evolution deciet by harun yahya.

​

RedRival Free Hosting

​

The article stating that we are 99.4% the same is actually false. (From a more recent study than the one Andya refers to)

​

Read:-

​

Page Not Found

​

Driving man and chimp apart:-

​

Indels, not single substitutions, in the MHC region account for differential
immune response | By Cathy Holding

​

The major histocompatibility locus (MHC) contains some 224 genes and is one of the most gene-dense regions of the human genome. It comprises the HLA class I and II genes, and contained within the class I region are the MHC class I chain-related (MIC) genes, of which there are two functional coding genes in man, MICA and MICB. All these genes are highly polymorphicsome having hundreds of alleles within the human population, and a large number function in the immune system. The entire MHC region is highly conserved between chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans, but these closely related species react quite differently to various pathogens, the most notable being HIV. The entire human MHC genomic sequence is available, and in the June 24 PNAS, Tatsuya Anzai and colleagues at the Tokai University School of Medicine use probes derived from this to isolate chimpanzee genomic library clones and to derive the genomic sequence of half of the chimpanzee MHC region in order to discover the molecular basis for these immunologic differences (PNAS, 100:7708-7713, June 24, 2003).

​

Anzai et al. used comparative genomics to reveal a total of 64 insertion/deletions (indels) >100 bp long in the human sequence. These are composed of repeat elements and were shown to be directly responsible for the differences between the two species. The most significant of these differences is the loss of one copy of the MIC gene in the chimpanzee, of which there are the two in man. This is not a simple deletion, as in some human individuals carrying the HLA-B*4801 allele, but consists of a similar-sized deletion that joins the 5' end of human MICA to the 3' end of MICB, somewhere between MICA's second and MICB's fourth introns, to create a single chimeric gene in the chimpanzee. In addition, detailed comparison between the 1.87 Mb human and 1.75 Mb chimpanzee sequences revealed that mismatches were represented by 9% substitutions and by over 90% indels.

​

"Comparative genomics with the orthologous human MHC class I region unveils a wealth of information, the most salient being the existence of a large number of indels that appear to be the main driving force behind the observed differences between the two species. Hence our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work [] puts both species much further apart," conclude the authors.

​

Links for this article
H.A. Stephens, "MICA and MICB genes: can the enigma of their polymorphism be resolved?" Trends in Immunology, 22:378-385, July 2001.
[PubMed Abstract]
T. Anzai et al., "Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence," PNAS, 100:7708-7713, June 24, 2003.
[PubMed Abstract]
Tokai University School of Medicine
http://www.icc.u-tokai.ac.jp/index-e.html

​

Also Andya, you show you ignorance when you state that the rest of the dna is useless, infact functions have been and are being found continually. There is even a new field which says that the rest of the DNA is required to fullfill the fractal pattern in DNA. Ie., the noncoding DNA helps in expression of genes and acts also as an algorithm for the comlpex expression of DNA. Like those who shouted that ‘vestigial organs’ prove evolution, you jump to conclusions based on ignorance.
Only by selective philosophically motivated 'research' was 99.4% gotten.

​

There is more to dna than genes. Mice are supposed to be very similar to us genetically:-

​

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Mouse clues to human genetics

​

Mouse clues to human genetics

​

The genetic make-up of the mouse has been published for the first time in a scientific journal.

​

The mouse "book of life" reveals that humans and mice share at least 80% of their genes, with only 300 unique to either organism.
"We share 99% of our genes with mice, and we even have the genes that could make a tail"

​

Dr Jane Rogers, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
About 1,200 new human genes have been discovered while mining the mouse genome.

​

Many are involved in cancer and other human diseases and will help the search for new medical treatments.
The mouse data have been produced by a number of US and UK institutions, funded by the National Institutes of Health in America and the Wellcome Trust in Britain.
A private US company has already read the mouse genome but its research is not freely available to scientists - they must pay for access.
In contrast, the work done by the international consortium has been posted on the net and is available to all.
Mouse 'phrasebook'
The public draft of the mouse genetic code - published in Nature - covers about 95% of the genome.
It shows that about 80% of genes in mice and men are like for like.
But if one considers just the different classes of genes - mice have more genes involved in reproduction and smell, for example - then the similarity rises to 99%.

​

Dr Jane Rogers: "We have deciphered the mouse 'book of life'"
(Image by Wellcome Trust)

​

A fifth of the mouse genome was generated at the Sanger Institute near Cambridge, UK.
"The entire biomedical research community can for the first time fully use this resource to tackle human diseases," said Dr Jane Rogers, head of sequencing.
"They now have powerful tools that will serve them for many decades to come.
"We share 99% of our genes with mice, and we even have the genes that could make a tail." (Marwan: this is probably the Hox/Homeobox misinformation)

​

Human diseases

​

The information will prove crucial to researchers investigating the human genome, the complete set of biochemical instructions used by cells to build and maintain our bodies.

​

The mouse genome is published in Nature

​

The draft of the human genetic blueprint was published in 2001, and is expected to be completed next year. The mouse genome should be finished in 2005.
Comparing the two genomes will help scientists understand how our cells work and why we get ill when one or more of our genes malfunction.
"We have learnt a huge amount about human medical problems by studying mouse genetics," said Professor Robert Winston, director of NHS research and development at Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, in London.
"This new landmark announcement is of immense importance and will undoubtedly further our understanding of the molecular basis for human diseases and the treatment of the widest range of human disorders."
Knock-out experiments
Scientists can work out what human genes do by "knocking out" similar looking genes in mice and studying the results.
Researchers can also trace the malfunctioning genes responsible for disease by examining sick mice that display symptoms apparently similar to human conditions.

​

Professor Allan Bradley, director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, said the work underlined the importance of animal research in tackling human diseases like diabetes.
He told BBC News Online: "By doing a few experiments in a mouse you can get information on a disease that's going to impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people."
The mouse genome is bundled into 20 chromosome pairs and the latest analysis suggests that it is about 2.5 billion base pairs, or "letters", in size.
This makes it slightly shorter than the human genome, which has about 2.9 billion base pairs spread out over 23 pairs of chromosomes.
The analysis also suggests the rodent has about 30,000 genes, a figure broadly similar to humans.

​

end

​

The rest of the dna has allot to do with gene expression and regulation and even with cell regulation. plenty of evidence is now mounting for this.

​

Finally, on a purely logical point:-

​

Genes code for many protiens.
Protiens are involved in nearly everything that happens in a body:-
enzymes
cell walls
chaperones for protien folding
energy transfer
atp formation
etc.........

​

All animals have requirement to do these things, it is therefore logical that we see some similarity in the genetic code.
It i only within a stupid and materialistically motivated mindset thjat similarity implies relatedness... why not logical creation?

​

Evolution is nothing but materialistic philosophy in the guise of science. They assume that it happens because they assume that God does not exist.

​

They are required to prove the mechanism of evolution, NOT ASSUME IT!

​

That is true science; that is the search for the truth.

​

The truth will always crush falsehood

---

What are you meaning by macroevolution? Speciation specifically?

quote:

---

Evolution is nothing but materialistic philosophy in the guise of science. They assume that it happens because they assume that God does not exist.

​

They are required to prove the mechanism of evolution, NOT ASSUME IT!

​

That is true science; that is the search for the truth.

​

The truth will always crush falsehood

---

What sort of evidence do you think your pal Truthseeker would find persuasive? He should switch his handle to Truthknower, because he's obviously made up his mind what he considers the Truth, and he knows what it will look like when he finds it. This has absolutely nothing to do with inductive reasoning, which assumes that all certainty is tentative and depends on the impact of new information. Induction is actually true science, whether he knows it or not.I've heard the analogy of a flashlight used to explain scientific reasoning. The way you use a theory like 'evolution' is by shining it on your surroundings and seeing how well it illuminates and explains what you see. The best scientific perspective is the one that best explains what you observe in nature. There is always a possibility that there are areas that this theory will fail to illuminate, and that may necessitate modifying the theory in order to improve its explanatory power.In typical creationist style, Truthseeker claims that evolution is 'nothing' but materialist philosophy dressed up as science. If this were true, then the theory would not make claims that could be verified or falsified. In fact, falsifying the theory of evolution by natural selection could be done by proving that traits are not heritable, or by proving that differential reproductive success has no bearing on the change in frequency of allelles in a population. Considering the amount of molecular data we now have, that should be easy to do.Saying that scientists assume God does not exist is a great way to stir up fundamentalist paranoia, but this has no basis in fact. The assumption is actually that only those factors which can be verified should be considered as affecting the outcome of a controlled experiment. This isn't done to 'disprove' the existence of God, it's simply a constraint to ensure that scientists conduct experiments whose conclusions can be independently obtained and verified. Pasteur was a believer, but his controlled experiments assumed the intervention of only factors that could be scientifically verified. The results revolutionized biology and now form the basis of life-saving vaccination procedures as well as billion-dollar fermentation industries. Was Pasteur wrong to 'exclude' God from his methodology?I wish you a fruitful and stimulating exchange with your correspondent, but I'm not sure how open he is to honest discussion.------------------
Quien busca, halla

Evidence for macroevolution ?Start here : 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentThe Cambrian Explosion - well there's quite a bit about that around, Glenn Morton had a page debunking some of the fallacies, but in terms of actually offering a scientific explanation here's a review of one attempt: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof60.htmYou might like to ask your opponent to explain Behe's basis for asserting that indirect routes of evolving irreducibly complex systems have a probability so low as to be negligible, or refer to the Avida simulation which recently succeeded in producing irreducibly complex functions. The full paper (which was published in Nature) can be downloaded from this site http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/

This doesn't explain the hierarchial mode of genetic similarity - humans are more genetically similar to those species evolutionary models suggest we're more closely related to. For instance we're more similar to apes than we are to mice, and more to mice than we are to reptiles, and more to reptiles than we are to bacteria, etc. Genetic programming does this every day.

quote:

---

The evidence that refutes macroevolution is, is the lack of evidence and some features of importance in nature (irreducible complex biochemical systems, Cambrian explosion and probably others). But the research project I am calling for is specifically designed to analyse the claims of macro evolutionary genetic change by an analysis of the mechanism and its substrate. You may be interested to help.

​

Can you show me the decisive evidence that proves macroevolution?

---

You've gotta love the logic here....The evidence that refutes X is the lack of evidence and some other stuff probably. Now that I've refuted it, can you show me your proof for it?I can't imagine how people like this successfully manage to operate their own diaphragms PE

The 'lack of evidence' as evidence against (obviously totally
incorrect as I am sure you know) would work to disprove God
should it be valid.

quote:

---

All animals have requirement to do these things, it is therefore logical that we see some similarity in the genetic code.
It i only within a stupid and materialistically motivated mindset thjat similarity implies relatedness... why not logical creation?

---

Again, the problem here is the dissimilarities.Like eyes ... lot's of creatures have eyes, and there are lots
of different types. If the creator put the 'logic' in to make
all the genes the same how come he made the eyes all different?You cannot claim both (i.e. he did it different, but deliberatly
did it the same too.) ... well you can in the 'God does as he/she/it
pleases' vein.Evolution explains both observations.Oh and I also read some articles about similarity at the genetic
level .... and it depends what you count and what you discount.
Without knowing that one cannot critically evaluate the
similarity.... then, as I have discovered recently, there is epigenetics!!!!A change in methylation state from parent to offspring can have marked
phenotypic effects ... cannot claim to understand this though

"The 'lack of evidence' as evidence against (obviously totally
incorrect as I am sure you know) would work to disprove God
should it be valid."Capital observation, I love it!

I have tended to find that turning the arguments levelled
at evolution back on the creationist view point either
invalidates the reasoning of the argument or disproves the
creationist stance ...