Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

Thanks Pro. Pro continues to talk about this mythical ‘Chicago Conference’ as if one conference held 30 years ago somehow overrides any evidence I might bring up – without mentioning what proofs the conference actually brought up itself. Leftovers I’d like to thank Pro on correcting the appendix – you’re right, it’s recently been found to have some kind of a purpose – although that notion is still not guaranteed. We agree with wisdom teeth – evolutionary remnants from when we had bigger jaws, and we find proof in human descendants - fossils 100 Million years old. How you wiggle out of calling that macroevolution would make any politician blush. The definition of the Plica semilunaris was modern. It certainly serves some small function: that might be why we still have it, however, its original purpose is very clear. The semilunar fold is an evolutionary remnant. Your explanation of male nipples (it’s hard not to giggle a bit when I write this) betrays your ignorance to biology. Sexual differentiation occurs at about 6 weeks – until then human fetuses are female. Males are formed when the Y chromosome is added. This is evolutionary – before the Y chromosome – when we were cold blooded reptiles, we were devoid of sex chromosomes. The Y chromosome evolved along with the X chromosome some 166 Million years ago. How can we tell this? We’ve mapped the genome of platypus: “The platypus has an extraordinary sex chromosome complex, in which five X and five Y chromosomes pair in a translocation chain of alternating X and Y chromosomes. We used physical mapping to identify genes on the pairing regions between adjacent X and Y chromosomes. Most significantly, comparative mapping shows that, contrary to earlier reports, there is no homology between the platypus and therian X chromosomes. Orthologs of genes in the conserved region of the human X (including SOX3, the gene from which SRY evolved) all map to platypus chromosome 6, which therefore represents the ancestral autosome from which the therian X and Y pair derived. Rather, the platypus X chromosomes have substantial homology with the bird Z chromosome (including DMRT1) and to segments syntenic with this region in the human genome. Thus, platypus sex chromosomes have strong homology with bird, but not to therian sex chromosomes, implying that the therian X and Y chromosomes (and the SRY gene) evolved from an autosomal pair after the divergence of monotremes only 166 million years ago. Therefore, the therian X and Y are more than 145 million years younger than previously thought.” The diagram of homologous structures remains unrefuted. Common Ancestry Actually, as you can see from the diagram, multi-cellular organisms evolved in 543 Ma, and it took 100 Million years to get to the “Age of Invertebrates”, and another 300 Million to get to man. There are countless carefully dated fossils that show a gradual climb. The Cambrian burst was unique for numerous reasons I listed before, “An exponential oxygen increase, formation of the Ozone, evolution of eyes, size, predation development”. There are numerous pre-Cambrian fossils that make the record much more complete, and we are finding more all the time – this is a newer field. “Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air.8 Further discoveries will no doubt reveal more clearly the relationship of Precambrian organisms with the creatures found in the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang deposits.” Rather than list an exhaustive list I will refer you to this graph: Gene Duplication This was once called the c-value paradox. It has since been solved. Genome complexity is not random. Almost nothing in nature is random. “Some genes may encode multiple proteins and gene regulation may be more important than gene number, which means that constructing a complex organism does not require a large number of genes any more than it requires a large genome...The net result is that vertebrate immunity is more flexible, but that this is achieved not through the addition of tens of thousands of new genes, but through the evolution of a system that can recombine existing genes.” There was probably a burst of genes during the Cambrian explosion era, most likely by one of the methods I listed earlier. Genes evolved by natural selection, indeed the number is not indicative of the complexity of the creature. I don’t see how showing how similar we are to other organisms helps your case in the slightest. This is not an apt comparison: the creation of Word or PowerPoint is top-down, ie: it required a complex creature to create Word. Evolution is bottom-up. It explains each process bit by bit. If we use your logic, then the top-down approach will inevitably leave us asking the question: who created the creator – leading to an infinite loop and ultimately leading us nowhere at all. Natural selection provides the cure to this problem. You are not operating under the assumption that natural selection took place. Single cell DNA: ”…information had to be added to the DNA of a single-celled organism. The DNA did not have that information to begin with. DNA grows in a very slow, but measurable way. Usually this is in the form of either (1) junk, harmless additional nucleotides, (2) deleterious, harmful additional nucleotides (which either kill the orgamism or render it unable to reproduce), (3) beneficial additional nucleotides, which (rarely) code for new, helpful traits, and (4) the wholesale duplication of genes or portions of DNA, usually through unplanned chemical processes.” Behe I have once again left little room for this analysis, I’ll adapt that article a bit: Behe claims the K76T mutation is impossible because it is so deleterious that it could never arise in the population. This has been completely refuted. “…Behe was dead wrong about it being “strongly deleterious.” In fact, it seems to have no effect on transport activity at all. A neutral mutation like this can easily propagate through a population, and field studies of the parasite confirm that is exactly what has happened. In fact, a 2003 study recommended against using the K76T mutation to test for chloroquine resistance since that same mutation was also found in 96% of patients who responded well to chloroquine. Clearly, K76T wouldn’t have become so widespread if it were indeed “strongly deleterious,” as Behe states it must be. This is a critical point, since Behe’s probability arguments depend on this incorrect claim.” “Chloroquine resistance arose in just a decade and a half, and is now common in the gene pool of this widespread parasite. Introduce a new drug for which the odds of evolving resistance are also 1 in 1020, and we can expect that it will take just about as long, 15 years, to evolve resistance to the second drug. Once you get that first CCC established in a population, the odds of developing a second one are not CCC squared. Rather, they are still 1 in 1020. Behe gets his super-long odds by pretending that both CCCs have to arise at once, in the same cell, purely by chance.” Sources http://genome.cshlp.org... http://www.pnas.org... http://biowiki.ucdavis.edu... http://biologos.org... http://books.google.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://evolutionfaq.com...