Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Unread 27th September 2011, 12:19 PM
Senior Member

48 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 29th May 2002
Posts: 956
Blessings: 1,079,289
Reps: 942,062,424,160,223 (power: 942,062,424,173)
SLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond repute
SLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond reputeSLP has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Astridhere View Post
It is fascinating for me as a creationist to see evolutionists discredit their own researchers and their published research.
And how do you feel about the fact that while using the same inerrant book as a source, we can have Young Earth Creationists who posit a 6000 year old earth and Old Earth Creationists who posit a billions years old earth?

Or is that different?
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #112  
Unread 27th September 2011, 01:34 PM
Naraoia's Avatar
Apprentice Biologist

28 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: Hungary Member For 5 Years Watchman
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 30th September 2007
Location: On edge
Posts: 6,664
Blessings: 4,056,380
Reps: 150,107,052,920,964,160 (power: 150,107,052,920,978)
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by sfs View Post
Evolution is to blame. After a one-day retreat (i.e. a day-long meeting) of the Boston Evolutionary Genomics Supergroup, Shamil Sunyaev convinced me that I should play volleyball, since they were short of players. And volleyball is all fun and games until someone tears a tendon trying to return a shot.
More proof that evolution is the devil's work.

Originally Posted by Blayz View Post
Apparently the IDers estimate falls right in line with the garbage put out by Darwinists.
Yeah, but "to speak of “identity” between genomes is nonsense, despite the high value obtained in the test."

Huh???
__________________
"There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet

"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reply With Quote
  #113  
Unread 28th September 2011, 01:39 PM
Zaius137's Avatar
Real science and faith are compatible.

Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Country: United States Member For 3 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 17th September 2011
Posts: 861
Blessings: 1,018,553
My Mood Thankful
Reps: 19,891,600,268,041,212 (power: 19,891,600,268,045)
Zaius137 has disabled reputation
I think it was sfs that threw me a bone…

(sfs)
“Yes, I read the paper. He is counting the number of perfectly matching 30 bp segments -- that's what his algorithm does, and what he described. What I did was make the simple calculation of how often 30 bp segments will fail to match if there is a random error rate of 1.4%.”

I want to get back to sfs’s argument of finding that 1.4% difference leads to ~65% similarity (close to the figure in the Uncommon Decent doc.). The only problem I had with sfs’s figure it lacked comparison interval. I recalculated using the poisson distribution.. As follows:

(1-.014) = .986 using P(0) = e^-m gives P(0) = .373 for no matches. Applying again the relationship (1-ans) =P(x) gives .627 or ~63%.

OK if the two numbers match to ~63% then we can use that figure to estimate the non aligned segments as being the same… but I will go with the secular figure of 70% similarity between chimp and human. Just for argument sake.

Sorry sfs I recant my irresponsible statement of your analysis as being puerile.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Unread 28th September 2011, 01:49 PM
Loudmouth's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 29,427
Blessings: 26,313,684
Reps: 1,027,594,174,583,363,072 (power: 1,027,594,174,583,404)
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by SLP View Post
No anti-evolutionists ever mention the fact that if we adopt this method of counting, then ALL related taxa will differ by larger amounts than previously considered.
At least the author at UD was honest enough to do just that. It can be found here:

Uncommon Descent | A statistical comparison of two human genomes

First, he recaps the method he used to compare the human and chimp genomes, just so that is clear (emphasis mine):

"For the benefit of readers, I’ll briefly recapitulate the simple comparison algorithm used in my previous test. 10,000 different sequences, each composed of 30 consecutive DNA bases (possible values: A, T, G and C) were randomly selected from chromosome N of genome A. A search for a matching pattern was then performed on the corresponding chromosome N of genome B. A pattern match was deemed to occur only when all 30 base pairs coincided perfectly – in other words, the head-to-head comparison between these DNA sub-strings was not relaxed, as occurs in many other tests in evolutionary comparative genomics."

So what was the difference between two human genomes?

"The average number of patterns without a match for human vs. human comparisons was (10000 – 9616) = 384, or in percentage terms, 384/10000 = 3.84%."

3.84% is a much higher percentage of divergence than is published in peer reviewed articles. Obviously, this method will always return a lower percentage of similarity than a base-to-base comparison of aligned sequence.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Unread 28th September 2011, 01:54 PM
Loudmouth's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 29,427
Blessings: 26,313,684
Reps: 1,027,594,174,583,363,072 (power: 1,027,594,174,583,404)
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Zaius137 View Post
. . . but I will go with the secular figure of 70% similarity between chimp and human. Just for argument sake.


The scientifically determined similarity is ~98% when ignoring indels and ~95% when indels are included. Wiki is not a scientific peer reviewed source. It can be edited and changed by anyone. I could go in and change it to 0% if I wanted.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Unread 28th September 2011, 02:13 PM
Zaius137's Avatar
Real science and faith are compatible.

Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Country: United States Member For 3 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 17th September 2011
Posts: 861
Blessings: 1,018,553
My Mood Thankful
Reps: 19,891,600,268,041,212 (power: 19,891,600,268,045)
Zaius137 has disabled reputation
Wouldn’t this be some kind of discussion if all opinions here were peer reviewed before they were posted? Stop and think about it. Are not all dissenting views coveted in an open debate? Authority is a good thing but what if the authority’s innate opinion squelches the thought process. I propose that evolution is a squelching force in the scientific community today. Peer reviewed documents do not give any advantage here and by the way I use both to summarize my opinion.

Reply With Quote
  #117  
Unread 28th September 2011, 02:23 PM
Take time for granite.

Gender: Male Married Faith: Atheist Member For 3 Years
 
Join Date: 13th June 2011
Posts: 3,252
Blessings: 30,057,493
Reps: 168,917,575,602,168,608 (power: 0)
FrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
FrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeFrenchyBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Zaius137 View Post
Wouldn’t this be some kind of discussion if all opinions here were peer reviewed before they were posted? Stop and think about it. Are not all dissenting views coveted in an open debate? Authority is a good thing but what if the authority’s innate opinion squelches the thought process. I propose that evolution is a squelching force in the scientific community today. Peer reviewed documents do not give any advantage here and by the way I use both to summarize my opinion.
If evolution is "squelching," then why is it independently arrived at as the only biological explanation for diversity and distribution at universities around the world over? The fact that there is debate over the details is fantastic, and exactly what the scientific method requires to arrive at the best explanation. Ultimately, theories will stand on their own merits, regardless of who espouses or criticizes them. Over the last 150 years, ToE has been studied in virtually every field of science, only to come to the same conclustion. The ToE is as sound and robust as any scientific theory.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Unread 28th September 2011, 04:15 PM
Loudmouth's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 29,427
Blessings: 26,313,684
Reps: 1,027,594,174,583,363,072 (power: 1,027,594,174,583,404)
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Loudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond reputeLoudmouth has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Zaius137 View Post
Wouldn’t this be some kind of discussion if all opinions here were peer reviewed before they were posted?


It would certainly be an improvement if the data used to support one's arguments were from the peer reviewed literature.

Are not all dissenting views coveted in an open debate?


All of them? No. The dissenting views based on a misunderstanding of the facts are not coveted.

Authority is a good thing but what if the authority’s innate opinion squelches the thought process.


Our arguments are based on the results of scientific experiments, not authority.

I propose that evolution is a squelching force in the scientific community today.


Then show us the scientific work being done by creationists and how these papers have been rejected by peer reviewed journals. If you are going to play the persecution card then you had better back it up.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Unread 28th September 2011, 07:15 PM
Zaius137's Avatar
Real science and faith are compatible.

Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Country: United States Member For 3 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 17th September 2011
Posts: 861
Blessings: 1,018,553
My Mood Thankful
Reps: 19,891,600,268,041,212 (power: 19,891,600,268,045)
Zaius137 has disabled reputation
Isn’t good we can have these kinds of discussions.

To FrenchyBearpaw…

You know I have participated in all types of forums. Usually when a common group of biased participants gets together in the same place they can make it pretty difficult for the outlying opinion. I have just been flagged off a forum by atheists just for suggesting that evolution is incomplete. Now they can share all the “unbiased” opinions they want. I am not whining about it because it is just the way of the world. I love the science, always have, but some evidence is just taboo. Anyway I hope to discuss the ToE and maybe get into the recent failure to find the Higgs, the implications of that are more significant than most imagine. Let’s continue to reason by way of science.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Unread 28th September 2011, 07:42 PM
Naraoia's Avatar
Apprentice Biologist

28 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: Hungary Member For 5 Years Watchman
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 30th September 2007
Location: On edge
Posts: 6,664
Blessings: 4,056,380
Reps: 150,107,052,920,964,160 (power: 150,107,052,920,978)
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Zaius137 View Post
Wouldn’t this be some kind of discussion if all opinions here were peer reviewed before they were posted? Stop and think about it. Are not all dissenting views coveted in an open debate? Authority is a good thing but what if the authority’s innate opinion squelches the thought process. I propose that evolution is a squelching force in the scientific community today.
You wouldn't think it's a squelching force if you saw more of the scientific community. There is a lot of debate in evolutionary biology. It would be a dead science otherwise, but it's (thank goodness) in fact very alive. I think the very fact that virtually no one in the community disputes the general idea of evolution and common descent speaks volumes.

Scientists love to argue

Peer reviewed documents do not give any advantage here and by the way I use both to summarize my opinion.
Even from a pure tactical point of view, they do give you an advantage. We are more likely to take you seriously if you can support your position with peer-reviewed data

Originally Posted by Zaius137 View Post
To FrenchyBearpaw…

You know I have participated in all types of forums. Usually when a common group of biased participants gets together in the same place they can make it pretty difficult for the outlying opinion.
Whatever I might think of the rest of your posts, I have to agree with this. I basically got off a crevo mailing list because I got overwhelmed by the creationist/IDist members. I know how hard it is to take on a whole group when you're basically alone. It's not necessarily a matter of bias, I think - just sheer "manpower".
__________________
"There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet

"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.