Although the original post to which I'm responding is from long ago, I thought it would still be useful to debunk the ongoing effort of the Turkish creationists. Andya asks how to respond to the inane claims of Turkish creationists (the Turkish creationist group BAV, led by Adnan Oktar, all write under the pseudonym Harun Yahya):
Quoting Yahya:
"When we look at genetic comparisons in general, we find surprising similarities which do not fit within the alleged evolutionary relationships between species. For example a genetic analysis has revealed a surprising 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.iii According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were unrelated to each other even 530 million years ago. Thus, the % 70 similarity - a very high figure for humans and nematode worms, completely different and dissimilar life forms - does not imply any evolutionary relationship.
On the other hand, the analyses carried on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile...."
Edicaran:
The Turkish creationists are predictably misrepresenting scientists in making their claims. Since all known organisms are biologically related through evolution, the whole premise of the first paragraph is falsified. The best way to debunk the creationists who misrepresent scientists is to check the creationist claims against the work of the original scientists. The nematode study substantiates evolution.
As for man and chicken being shown closest in a study of terrestrial vertebrates, the Turkish creationists are misrepresenting a New Scientist article written by Michael Benton. What the creationists fail to mention is that the ***ONLY*** animals being compared in the particular instance cited were a human, a chicken, and a crocodile. Here's what the author of the New Scientist article(New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19) wrote about the creationist misrepresentation of his work:
"Thank you for sending me the letter and the quotes. I had been aware of some of this, and I'm amazed the creationists are so desperate as to sink to such trickery and lying. And to use a 1984 article, when so much current work is available on molecular sequences!
You're quite right that I was simply reviewing well known work at that time which showed that if you take the protein sequences of a human, a chicken and a crocodile, the haemoglobin and myoglobin of the chicken pair off with the human rather than the crocodile. The point is that this contradicted morphological evidence (the 'classic view') that crocodiles and birds are closer relatives. Of course, chimp haemoglobin is identical to that of humans, and duck haemoglobin is closer to that of a chicken than is human. It's a travesty."
Again, we see that the real scientists substantiate evolution with data and do valid research - while creationists merely lie by misrepresenting the work of the scientists.
™ Version 4.2