Lol I will ask you to read this thread at the beginning because we have had this argument before. I dont argue in circles.

Both Uyi Iredia and Davidylan have been caught with false statements and misinformation about evolution. What credibilty do you guys even have?


Commot fo road jo!

More wishful thinking from evolutionists

[img]http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/Archaeoptryx_1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/Archaeoptryx_2.jpg[/img]


From that incomplete fossil they created the so-called Archeopteryx.

Uyi Iredia:

Chances are his evidence will be a quote from Wikipedia.

That would be a lot better than "evidence" from youtube videos.

Logicboy03: Lol I will ask you to read this thread at the beginning because we have had this argument before. I dont argue in circles.

Both Uyi Iredia and Davidylan have been caught with false statements and misinformation about evolution. What credibilty do you guys even have?


Commot fo road jo!

Is it so hard to provide this "evidence" you cry so much about?

Logicboy03: Lol I will ask you to read this thread at the beginning because we have had this argument before. I dont argue in circles.

Both Uyi Iredia and Davidylan have been caught with false statements and misinformation about evolution. What credibilty do you guys even have?


Commot fo road jo!

Bros you don spoil my birthday with that arrogant lie. Were did you catch me spreading misinformation ? Most of the time you simply claim ignorance without giving any explanation.

Davidylan caught lying about evolution (discovery of a human fossil)

davidylan:

Really? In what sense is evolution a "well grounded theory"? Grounded in what?
If Lucy is your "evidence for evolution" then there is no point talking with you.

logicboy:





Good. So i dont have to argue with your lying. Keep repeating the creationist lie that lucy is a hoax and maybe it will become true for you.

This is the national geographic website on lucy;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucy.html


Here is a scientific journal about lucy;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.1390050302/abstract

I am happy that everyone can see you for the liar that you are. Lucy is not a hoax

https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050/2#10689760

Uyi Iredia do you want me to expose your leas on evolution as well?

Logicboy03: Davidylan caught lying about evolution (discovery of a human fossil)

https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050/2#10689760

Maybe i'm blind but i cant see the lie there.

Besides, the time taken ferreting for "lies" would have been better spent providing the evidence you claim to have at your fingertips.

It appears to me that you are more vested in spending hours trying to discredit those who ask you uncomfortable questions than proving them wrong with sound science.

davidylan:

Maybe i'm blind but i cant see the lie there.

Besides, the time taken ferreting for "lies" would have been better spent providing the evidence you claim to have at your fingertips.

It appears to me that you are more vested in spending hours trying to discredit those who ask you uncomfortable questions than proving them wrong with sound science.

lol.....the evidence for evolution is there for you to read. You dont need to argue with logicboy in 4 different threads over evolution to know it.



Somple internet search can help you out

Uyi Iredia:

Chances are his evidence will be a quote from Wikipedia.

No....not a quote...a link to page that has a dozen search results.... or better still a YouTube video.

A quote from Wikipedia presupposes someone who actually reads...

Uyi Iredia: More wishful thinking from evolutionists

[img]http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/Archaeoptryx_1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/Archaeoptryx_2.jpg[/img]


From that incomplete fossil they created the so-called Archeopteryx.

davidylan:
I'm not at all sure you truly understand your own point here because it is seriously convoluted and does not convey a clarity of message that is required when it comes to issues like this.

sorry if you don't get my message, it might be due to the fact that i am posting with a mobile phone.

1. To the issue of the fossil record - it is true that the theory of evolution is not based on fossils (that is BECAUSE the fossil record itself exposes the lie that is evolution!). It is impossible to claim that man evolved gradually YET be unable to point to clear examples of these intermediate creatures in the fossil record. Where did they go? Thin air? It is scientifically impossible to calculate the true length of a chain just by looking at the first and last links and completely ignoring the fact that the middle links are all missing or perhaps do not even exist. this escapes logic.

you deliberately mislead, lie and misinformed just to discredit well established scientific facts, in order to massage your ego and psyche.

I said the theory of evolution was accepted in the academia before the discovery and study of fossils. The study of Fossils came much later and went on to support and compliment the theory of evolution. Furthermore other related field of science like geology, microbiology, paleontology, genetics, etc have cemented the theory beyond reasonable doubt.

i am sorry to say, but you talk like someone who had never taken a class in elementary biology, because if you did you would understand the fossilization process to the extent, that it is impossible to find all the evolutionary branches for a land based specie. For the fossiilization process to take place, an animal must fall inside water or mud first and mud, sand or silt must start to cover it almost immediately before the animal decomposes. The accumulated sand, silt or mud becomes pressurized to rock after a very long time with the fossilized animal embedded in it. Finally the rock containing the fossil must rise above the water to be able to be discovered (by pure luck) by scientists.

The fact that all the links on an evolutionary ladder for a few species can never invalidate the whole theory of evolution. And definitely the facts that there are missing links in the evolutionary tree of man does not discredit the whole theory of evolution.

2. What was your point on the DNA issue exactly?

My point is that the closer the genes of two species are, the closer their evolutionary relationship. For example, gorilla and man share 98% of their genes and so are referred to as evolutionary cousins. They shared a common ancestor a few million years ago. Meanwhile, man shares less than 60% of their genes with an earthworm and so shared a common ancestor way back in time, like a billion years ago.

Again you fail to explain HOW beyond just asserting an empty claim that you made earlier. How for example do we know that we evolved from monkeys and not from a mouse considering we share a tremendous amount of similar genetic information?

At times, i cannot believe you wrote the above, are you claiming that we share more genes with a mouse than a monkey? Honestly if a non scientist like an accountant or a lawyer wrote the above it would be understandable, but for a professed biologist, it is unbelievable. No biologist can ever claimed that we evolved from monkeys.

But this was what you said barely 5 lines ago - "The study of fossils is based on the theory of evolution."

Isnt that circular logic? How can the study of fossils give strong credence to the theory of evolution when the very study of fossils is BASED ON the theory of evolution?

It appears to me that you have not thought out your arguments very well.

it is a pity you do not have basic understanding of evolution. The evolutionary tree of a family might contain one or more extinct specie between two living species, the extinct species could only be identified by their fossil remains.

wirinet:
you deliberately mislead, lie and misinformed just to discredit well established scientific facts, in order to massage your ego and psyche.

there is ample evidence to suggest this is rather a tactic from your side.

wirinet:
I said the theory of evolution was accepted in the academia before the discovery and study of fossils. The study of Fossils came much later and went on to support and compliment the theory of evolution. Furthermore other related field of science like geology, microbiology, paleontology, genetics, etc have cemented the theory beyond reasonable doubt.

The above makes no sense... if the theory of evolution was "accepted in academia" before the discovery of fossils then on what empirical evidence was the idea of intermediate species accepted?

Left to me... and to many other renowned scientists out there... the idea that geology, microbiology etc cement the theory "beyond reasonable doubt" (a very long stretch as this is still very much in debate) is similar to what is routinely seen in a lot of pseudo-science - writing science to FIT a preconcieved idea. The idea of evolution had already been "accepted" without much empirical evidence. A lot of the junk science out there was forced to fit the already "accepted" idea and those that didnt fit where either thrown out or discredited without much thought.

wirinet:
i am sorry to say, but you talk like someone who had never taken a class in elementary biology, because if you did you would understand the fossilization process to the extent, that it is impossible to find all the evolutionary branches for a land based specie. For the fossiilization process to take place, an animal must fall inside water or mud first and mud, sand or silt must start to cover it almost immediately before the animal decomposes. The accumulated sand, silt or mud becomes pressurized to rock after a very long time with the fossilized animal embedded in it. Finally the rock containing the fossil must rise above the water to be able to be discovered (by pure luck) by scientists.

This actually exposes you are an ignorant quack. You seem to be suggesting that VIRTUALLY ALL intermediate species didnt fall inside water or mud?

wirinet:
he fact that all the links on an evolutionary ladder for a few species can never invalidate the whole theory of evolution. And definitely the facts that there are missing links in the evolutionary tree of man does not discredit the whole theory of evolution.

The problem is that there are missing links in the evolutionary tree of ALL animals on earth today. Why? Where is the evolutionary tree for the cockroach, cat or sloth? They didnt fall inside mud too?

wirinet:
My point is that the closer the genes of two species are, the closer their evolutionary relationship. For example, gorilla and man share 98% of their genes and so are referred to as evolutionary cousins. They shared a common ancestor a few million years ago. Meanwhile, man shares less than 60% of their genes with an earthworm and so shared a common ancestor way back in time, like a billion years ago.

99% of human genes have homologues in mice... are they our evolutionary cousins as well?

wirinet:
At times, i cannot believe you wrote the above, are you claiming that we share more genes with a mouse than a monkey? Honestly if a non scientist like an accountant or a lawyer wrote the above it would be understandable, but for a professed biologist, it is unbelievable. No biologist can ever claimed that we evolved from monkeys.

I am not claiming... i know that for a fact.
Of 30,000 genes... only 300 are unique to humans or mice. These are established facts... making noise does not make that go away. Obviously you have never been exposed to mouse genetics before. There is a reason virtually almost all gene knockout studies are performed in mice and not monkeys. But i wouldnt expect a complete illiterate like you to know that. My grad school thesis was based on the study of a particular human gene and we used mouse KOs. Perhaps you should understand what you talk about first before you post? Just saying...

In case you are still confused - here is the science journal that proved the above http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5573/1661.abstract

Ignorant atheists blathering on loudly with no knowledge.

Just for laughs... we share about 66% of our DNA with maize. Apparently we must be closely related to a corn cob too... must explain the loppy ears some folks have no?

wirinet:
it is a pity you do not have basic understanding of evolution. The evolutionary tree of a family might contain one or more extinct specie between two living species, the extinct species could only be identified by their fossil remains.

Neither do you because the above is another piece of senseless word salad. The chicken is not extinct, can you create its evolutionary tree right now?

The theory of evolution is central to mordern biology. It is clear to me that the centre of davidylan's biology is full of spirits . Tell us where you got your degree; we will petition them to have it withdrawn.

I was initially afraid that you are are ignorant of the basic facts of the theory of evolution, but now i know you are simply deceitful, like a handful of scientists who deliberately mislead the general public, using lies, misinformation and minor disagreements among experts, all in order to justify their religious convictions.

Yes, it is true that there are lots of pseudo-science out there, and through out the history of science, a lot of science theories were propounded and accepted because they fit pre-conceived ideas. As much as that is a weakness of science itself, it is also it greatest strength. Science is a self correcting system, overtime pseudo-science is weeded out and discarded, and better theories explaining observations and experiments are adopted (which is diametrically opposite to religious theories, which is unobsevable, unexperimentable and unquestionable and must remain immutable till eternity).

Charles Darwin (who incidently has a degree in divinity) wrote the origin of species in 1859, after 25 years of research, and up till today, after more than 150 years with new discoveries in anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, it still cannot be faulted. Is that not amazing? I think you should pick up and the read the book, maybe you can pick holes in Darwin's arguments.

Cockroaches, bugs, beetles appeared in the cambrian period and have changed very little since then(since they have adapted almost perfectly to their environment), if you want to study the evolutionary history of the cockroach you have to go further back. For sloths you have go back to the ediacaran period to begin your study.

Cats and all other mammals evolved from shrew-like or tupaia-like mammals which were able to flourish after the demise of the dinosaurs.

Your comment on the mice genome betray the very dishonest and deceitful nature of your arguments. Most other biologists see the similarities between the mouse genome and that of man as a confirmation of evolution, but you and a very few creationist "scientist" dubiously interprete it as evidence of creation.

Why are you lying that mice genome is used in research of human genome because the genes share more similarities than with other mammals? Why not tell them that mice genome is used only because human and mice genomes are the only two genomes of mammals that have been sequence. When the completed monkey genome is sequenced, then a comparism with human(and mice also) would be possible.

turnstoner: The theory of evolution is central to mordern biology. It is clear to me that the centre of davidylan's biology is full of spirits . Tell us where you got your degree; we will petition them to have it withdrawn.

you should simply come and tell us what the truth is if you know... rather than blabbing like an incoherent drunk.

wirinet: I was initially afraid that you are are ignorant of the basic facts of the theory of evolution, but now i know you are simply deceitful, like a handful of scientists who deliberately mislead the general public, using lies, misinformation and minor disagreements among experts, all in order to justify their religious convictions.

sigh. you really are an ignorant one arent you?

wirinet:
Why are you lying that mice genome is used in research of human genome because the genes share more similarities than with other mammals? Why not tell them that mice genome is used only because [size=15pt]human and mice genomes are the only two genomes of mammals that have been sequence.[/size] When the completed monkey genome is sequenced, then a comparism with human(and mice also) would be possible.

1. I did not say that mice share more similarities that with other mammals. what i said was that of 30000 genes, only 300 are different between man and mice. I suppose you can read cant you?

2. For starters... the C. elegans genome was the first organism to have its entire genome sequenced. The rat genome was sequenced in 2004, the dog genome was sequenced in 2005, the chimpanzee genome was sequenced in 2005 - see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequenced_animal_genomes

Its obvious you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Run along and read from your web cheat sheet again. Then come back and say something incredulous.

Obviously you are not aware that mouse, rats, dogs and rabbits are the animals most responsible for much of what passes for scientific research today.

Oh and you know the research into telomeres and aging? All that came from fruit flies and C. elegans... they share remarkable similarities in their genes with humans.

You really shouldnt be so lazy and dumb at the same time!

wirinet: I was initially afraid that you are are ignorant of the basic facts of the theory of evolution, but now i know you are simply deceitful, like a handful of scientists who deliberately mislead the general public, using lies, misinformation and minor disagreements among experts, all in order to justify their religious convictions.

Yes, it is true that there are lots of pseudo-science out there, and through out the history of science, a lot of science theories were propounded and accepted because they fit pre-conceived ideas. As much as that is a weakness of science itself, it is also it greatest strength. Science is a self correcting system, overtime pseudo-science is weeded out and discarded, and better theories explaining observations and experiments are adopted (which is diametrically opposite to religious theories, which is unobsevable, unexperimentable and unquestionable and must remain immutable till eternity).

Charles Darwin (who incidently has a degree in divinity) wrote the origin of species in 1859, after 25 years of research, and up till today, after more than 150 years with new discoveries in anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, it still cannot be faulted. Is that not amazing? I think you should pick up and the read the book, maybe you can pick holes in Darwin's arguments.

Cockroaches, bugs, beetles appeared in the cambrian period and have changed very little since then(since they have adapted almost perfectly to their environment), if you want to study the evolutionary history of the cockroach you have to go further back. For sloths you have go back to the ediacaran period to begin your study.

Cats and all other mammals evolved from shrew-like or tupaia-like mammals which were able to flourish after the demise of the dinosaurs.

Your comment on the mice genome betray the very dishonest and deceitful nature of your arguments. Most other biologists see the similarities between the mouse genome and that of man as a confirmation of evolution, but you and a very few creationist "scientist" dubiously interprete it as evidence of creation.

Why are you lying that mice genome is used in research of human genome because the genes share more similarities than with other mammals? Why not tell them that mice genome is used only because human and mice genomes are the only two genomes of mammals that have been sequence. When the completed monkey genome is sequenced, then a comparism with human(and mice also) would be possible.

In fact the DNA of chimpanzees has been sequenced and is believed that they are the closest relatives to man. But similarity is an inconclusive ground for proposing ancestry. There are many organism that are similar that don't come from the same parents.

Uyi Iredia:

In fact the DNA of chimpanzees has been sequenced and is believed that they are the closest relatives to man. But similarity is an inconclusive ground for proposing ancestry. There are many organism that are similar that don't come from the same parents.

Don't be silly! You and your cousins didn't come from the same parents, but you share the same ancestry; not so?

turnstoner:

Don't be silly! You and your cousins didn't come from the same parents, but you share the same ancestry; not so?

so you do share the same ancestry as a cob of maize? You shouldnt be silly.

davidylan:

so you do share the same ancestry as a cob of maize? You shouldnt be silly.

That's the point, davidylan, use your head for goodness's sakes!

turnstoner:

That's the point, davidylan, use your head for goodness's sakes!

That would be assuming that you're using yours right? I mean you're not contributing anything cerebral to the topic, just stumbling around incoherently with pointless knee-jerk nonsense then telling others to use their heads? Are you serious?

The jokes section is on the next board. thanks.

I have my head screwed on tight, that is why i despair when clearly ignorant blowhards like you come here pretending to be knowledgeable about science. I asked a simple question... does the fact that you share 60% of the DNA of a cob of maize suggest you are descendants of a similar ancestor? Perhaps you should answer that question rather than stumbling around exposing your own dearth of intelligent things to say.

davidylan:

That would be assuming that you're using yours right? I mean you're not contributing anything cerebral to the topic, just stumbling around incoherently with pointless knee-jerk nonsense then telling others to use their heads? Are you serious?

The jokes section is on the next board. thanks.

I have my head screwed on tight, that is why i despair when clearly ignorant blowhards like you come here pretending to be knowledgeable about science. I asked a simple question... does the fact that you share 60% of the DNA of a cob of maize suggest you are descendants of a similar ancestor? Perhaps you should answer that question rather than stumbling around exposing your own dearth of intelligent things to say.

Sorry O! I thought you being a ''biologist'' would be able to work it out for for yourself. Obviously am mistaken.

The closer two species are the smaller the percentage difference in their genetic constitution, see?

Among the great apes,the chimp is closest to us humans and so the difference in our genetic constitution is about 1%. The percentage diff. between us and gorillas and orangutangs is much wider - btn 3 - 5%.

Therefore, 60% is pretty wide enough gap btn humans and the maize plant.

This ok for you, block-head?

turnstoner:

Sorry O! I thought you being a ''biologist'' would be able to work it out for for yourself. Obviously am mistaken.

The closer two species are the smaller the percentage difference in their genetic constitution, see?

Among the great apes,the chimp is closest to us humans and so the difference in our genetic constitution is about 1%. The percentage diff. between us and gorillas and orangutangs is much wider - btn 3 - 5%.

Therefore, 60% is pretty wide enough gap btn humans and the maize plant.

This ok for you, block-head?

But that would make very little sense now would it? I mean your point is that humans are closer to a cob of maize on the evolutionary chain than fruit flies? I cant believe someone with a brain actually postulated that.

davidylan:

But that would make very little sense now would it? I mean your point is that humans are closer to a cob of maize on the evolutionary chain than fruit flies? I cant believe someone with a brain actually postulated that.

The comparisons i have made are about primates. No where in my post have I compared humans with drosophila and or maize cobs. Its a well established fact that all living things originated from primitive prokaryotic cells. Plants and animal cells later formed separate branches. It is ancestry we are talking about is it not? Humans have 46 chromosomes while the maize plant has 20: where is the closeness?

Its clear to me now that you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference between a maize cob and a maize plant?

Try and educate yourself about this things at the library or google before you come to NL to waste people's time. I am done with you - permanently!

turnstoner:

The comparisons i have made are about primates. No where in my post have I compared humans with drosophila and or maize cobs. Its a well established fact that all living things originated from primitive prokaryotic cells. Plants and animal cells later formed separate branches. It is ancestry we are talking about is it not? Humans have 46 chromosomes while the maize plant has 20: where is the closeness?

Its clear to me now that you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference between a maize cob and a maize plant?

Try and educate yourself about this things at the library or google before you come to NL to waste people's time. I am done with you - permanently!

He claims to be a biologist. I am now sure that he is either a lab assistant or a janitor at a biological research facility

turnstoner:

The comparisons i have made are about primates. No where in my post have I compared humans with drosophila and or maize cobs.

Obviously you post without thinking or even bothering to read what the entire discussion has been about. It is quite true that you have been making comparison to primates but again it exposes how little you know. The general atheist argument for some time has been that the remarkable similarities in the ape and human genome is proof that we evolved from a similar ancestor. Now that makes sense only to folks like you who dont think outside the box... we share a remarkable similarity in our genomes with the drosophila, maize plant and a mouse. Are we evolved from a similar ancestor as the last 3 too?

Infact if you look back and read your own post (post 183 on this page), there is evidence that YOU KNEW and even commented on my comments on the maize cob. Your argument then was that the wider gap in genome similarities with the maize is evidence that our evolutionary tree diverged from the maize far longer than happened with apes... makes zero sense as maize is still a PLANT not an animal!

THAT dear boy, is the argument this thread has been about in the last 3 pages... perhaps you should take your time to read before posting.

turnstoner:
Its a well established fact that all living things originated from primitive prokaryotic cells.

You mean it is a "well established fact" in your head? Care to provide proof? I guessed not.

turnstoner:
Plants and animal cells later formed separate branches. It is ancestry we are talking about is it not? Humans have 46 chromosomes while the maize plant has 20: where is the closeness?

This is quite daft. Number of chromosomes has zero effect on how similar different organisms are in terms of coding DNA.
When you compare coding (effective) DNA, humans and the maize share a 60% similarity... i'm sorry but did you ever read biology at any point?

You do realize that humans with chromosomal abnormalities are still humans with the same exact coding sequence as the rest of us right?

turnstoner:
Its clear to me now that you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know the difference between a maize cob and a maize plant?

and here we go with the irrelevant straw man.

turnstoner:
Try and educate yourself about this things at the library or google before you come to NL to waste people's time. I am done with you - permanently!

You should have done the same... apparently you were not expecting that those on the other side of the divide actually know more about the biology of life than empty heads like you who rely exclusively on what you can glean off google to sound like you have a clue what you are debating.

Why dont you find a good biology textbook and start reading?

Logicboy03:



He claims to be a biologist. I am now sure that he is either a lab assistant or a janitor at a biological research facility

suit yourself. There are more intelligent janitors out there than you.

davidylan:

suit yourself. There are more intelligent janitors out there than you.

davidylan:

sigh. you really are an ignorant one arent you?



1. I did not say that mice share more similarities that with other mammals. what i said was that of 30000 genes, only 300 are different between man and mice. I suppose you can read cant you?

2. For starters... the C. elegans genome was the first organism to have its entire genome sequenced. The rat genome was sequenced in 2004, the dog genome was sequenced in 2005, the chimpanzee genome was sequenced in 2005 - see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequenced_animal_genomes

Its obvious you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Run along and read from your web cheat sheet again. Then come back and say something incredulous.

Obviously you are not aware that mouse, rats, dogs and rabbits are the animals most responsible for much of what passes for scientific research today.

Oh and you know the research into telomeres and aging? All that came from fruit flies and C. elegans... they share remarkable similarities in their genes with humans.

You really shouldnt be so lazy and dumb at the same time!

Mr David, i am now convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you are completely clueless about biology and an added challenge in English comprehension. Please i would like to know the university that granted you a PHD in biology and the professors. So that i can send some of your posts to them.

The story of humans having 30,000 genes of which only 300 are unique between man and mouse is very old news. It was written in 2002, when only man and mouse sequence had been sequence. comparism of human genome with other mammals have since been updated with the chimpanzee being the closest to human.

Where i believe you have comprehension challenge is when you equate 99% of mice genes having homologues in human to mean that the genes are identical or that it means that human share 99% DNA with mice. Do you even know what homology means? Is it possible to use the word outside the context of evolution? I even doubt you know that genes constitutes only 3% of human DNA. Please educate yourself on homology here - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

you can also read up on recent update on the number of genes humans has here -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm

About my statement about human and mice being the only mammal that had been completely sequenced, i admit not being wrong there, what i should have said is that human and mice are the most comprehensively and accurately sequenced. You should know that sequencing an ongoing process and the genome of most animals is updated regularly.

In 2002, human genome was estimated to be 30,000 genes, today it is put at around 23,000.

what exactly is your point on c. Elegans and fruit flies? Are you also saying they are closer genetically to human than chimpanzee or mice or even chicken?

Please explain to us (since you claim you are a biologist), the origin and diversity of species on earth.

If you are unable to answer the above question, My brotherly advice is quit calling yourself a biologist

Oh dear... here goes nothing

wirinet:
The story of humans having 30,000 genes of which only 300 are unique between man and mouse is very old news. It was written in 2002, when only man and mouse sequence had been sequence. comparism of human genome with other mammals have since been updated with the chimpanzee being the closest to human.

Actually the genomes of C.elegans and drosophila were sequenced 4 and 2 years earlier respectively. The full human genome was not completed until 2006.

You should pay better attention to the websites you are copying.

wirinet:
Where i believe you have comprehension challenge is when you equate 99% of mice genes having homologues in human to mean that the genes are identical or that it means that human share 99% DNA with mice. Do you even know what homology means? Is it possible to use the word outside the context of evolution? I even doubt you know that genes constitutes only 3% of human DNA. Please educate yourself on homology here - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

Oh please... ok here we go - HDAC2, HDAC1, HDAC3, Wnt, NF-kB, p53... just a very short list of genes in man that have the exact same function in mice. What was your point?

Actually genes constitute 100% of the DNA... what you probably meant to say was CODING genes make less than 3% of human DNA, the rest is made up of non-coding genes, most of them mere tandem repeats.

wirinet:
About my statement about human and mice being the only mammal that had been completely sequenced, i admit not being wrong there, what i should have said is that human and mice are the most comprehensively and accurately sequenced. You should know that sequencing an ongoing process and the genome of most animals is updated regularly.

You are right there but it is not the reason mice are used routinely to study human genes... about time you researched that issue as well because you seem to be conflating two irrelevant issues. For example, the rat genome was sequenced barely a year after in 2003... so why exactly are rat knockouts not common? It doesnt take 90 yrs to develop gene knockouts you know?

wirinet:
In 2002, human genome was estimated to be 30,000 genes, today it is put at around 23,000.

your point?

wirinet:
what exactly is your point on c. Elegans and fruit flies? Are you also saying they are closer genetically to human than chimpanzee or mice or even chicken?

that their genomes were sequenced at least 2-4 yrs BEFORE that of the mouse. That if the mouse is only being used as a gene knockout because it was the first mammalian genome sequenced then that would not make sense since we can easily study the same genes in the fruitfly. Infact most of the studies on epigenetics was done... NOT in the mouse but in the fruit fly.

wirinet:
Please explain to us (since you claim you are a biologist), the origin and diversity of species on earth.

Now you want me to explain YOUR OWN science? Why dont you explain it... i believe in the bible.

wirinet:
If you are unable to answer the above question, My brotherly advice is quit calling yourself a biologist

That is just rubbish my friend. If you are interested then grab the book of genesis and have fun reading it.

davidylan: Oh dear... here goes nothing



Actually the genomes of C.elegans and drosophila were sequenced 4 and 2 years earlier respectively. The full human genome was not completed until 2006.

You should pay better attention to the websites you are copying.

if you now insist human genome was completed in 2006, why were you quoting 2002 gene estimate of 30,000 in your earlier arguments?

You know i do not copy and paste in my arguments, i have basic understandings of what i argue about, i use the web to get detailed information and recent updates.

Oh please... ok here we go - HDAC2, HDAC1, HDAC3, Wnt, NF-kB, p53... just a very short list of genes in man that have the exact same function in mice. What was your point?

you are shifting now aren't you? Your argument is now "have the same function". Genes having the same function does not mean that they are identical. It is the number and function of genes that were compared and not the actual DNA sequences.

Actually genes constitute 100% of the DNA... what you probably meant to say was CODING genes make less than 3% of human DNA, the rest is made up of non-coding genes, most of them mere tandem repeats.

the above quote further confirms my suspicion of your credentials as a Dr. In biology. You should know that i am talking about PROTEIN-CODING GENES. I hope you know that genome goes beyond protein coding genes.

Where did you get the information that the other 97% non protein coding genes are mere tandem repeats? What about RNA strands, virus strands and other so called "junk DNA"?

You are right there but it is not the reason mice are used routinely to study human genes... about time you researched that issue as well because you seem to be conflating two irrelevant issues. For example, the rat genome was sequenced barely a year after in 2003... so why exactly are rat knockouts not common? It doesnt take 90 yrs to develop gene knockouts you know?

I believe mice is used more than any other animal in gene studies (and other medical and scientific studies) because, mice are the scientist best friend when it comes to experiments. They prefer them to rats. I cant imagine that mice are used because they have the closest genome to man. I believe a knock out experiment with rat will yield similar result. If you have a source providing better reason why mice is preferred to rat, please share it with us.

Here is a sight that provide some information on rat, mice and human genome studies. http://www.genome.gov/11511308

your point?

my point is that your genes estimate of 30,000 for human protein coding genes is outdated and the total number is still being revised. Same with that of mouse. So it is senseless using a 10 year old data to compete human genes with mice.

that their genomes were sequenced at least 2-4 yrs BEFORE that of the mouse. That if the mouse is only being used as a gene knockout because it was the first mammalian genome sequenced then that would not make sense since we can easily study the same genes in the fruitfly. Infact most of the studies on epigenetics was done... NOT in the mouse but in the fruit fly.

i do not understand you o, are you now suggesting fruit flies be used in knock out experiments n relation to human genes? How many genes are homologues between man and fruit flies?

Then how come you now make a summersault to state that most studies in epigenetics is done with fruitflies? How does that reconcile earlier statement on mice being the most used animal in studies?

Now you want me to explain YOUR OWN science? Why dont you explain it... i believe in the bible.

my own science? You must have personality disorder. Am i the one claiming to be a Dr. In Molecular biology? And at the same time arguing again evolution as the reason for diversification of species. It is also crazy that you accept Micro evolution within species to adapt to little environmental variations but at the same time reject macro evolution between species to adapt to major environmental changes over millions and billions of years.

That is just rubbish my friend. If you are interested then grab the book of genesis and have fun reading it.

FYI, i have read the book of genesis, and in no way did it tell me about the diversification of species. It did not mention the origin of viruses, bacteria, fungis, non flowering plants, and millions of non middle eastern animals and plants. It did not provide the genome of any animal.
It did not even talk about the ability of animals to change to adapt to small changes in their environment. It talks about all animals being unchangeable. If it were so all living things would have been extinct by now, as the earth climate changes drastically over time.