Is ICR's GENE project science?

[sfs]

kerrmetric:


why would you laugh? if science was open-minded and had nothing to be afraid of, then what ICR does wouldn't matter.

We laugh at them because they're funny, in an appalling sort of way. That seems sufficient justification to me.

 

[Mallon]

Granted, this is specified in a more assertive manner than most hypotheses. However, I believe that they are honest and will report on their findings even if not supportive of their position, as they have in the past.

You certainly have more confidence in them than me, pop.
What do you think of their methodology, though? It sounds like their protocol isn't very controlled. They're simply having people (very likely mostly creationists from the southern US) call and send in cheek samples through the mail. Do you think this will reflect in the accuracy of the study at all?

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, they are specifically looking at a particular set -- cousins linked through the mothers. They also say that they will send exact instructions - I'm sure it includes a test kit, etc.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, they are specifically looking at a particular set -- cousins linked through the mothers. They also say that they will send exact instructions - I'm sure it includes a test kit, etc.

What will stop people from sending in faulty samples?

 

[crawfish]

Strange, I thought stating a hypothesis and then designing experiments to test it was a standard method in science. Yes, they have "expected" results -- but don't most experiments have those? I have enough confidence in their integrity to expect them to announce the results one way or the other -- and I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary with this organization. Of course, one issue is that the likelihood is that, like most complex experiments, the discussions will rage about methodology and results no matter what -- but then again, that can be very healthy.

My problem is the statement "demonstrating with certainty". This implies that the outcome of the experiment has already been decided, and they'll just look for data that makes it fit.

I'd be less dubious if they said "to see if a link exists that would prove...". That would seem to be the more scientific hypothesis.

 

[Mallon]

I'd be less dubious if they said "to see if a link exists that would prove...". That would seem to be the more scientific hypothesis.

Technically, what they should be doing is trying to falsify the hypothesis that man and chimps share a common ancestor. Or, to falsify the hypothesis that man is a created "kind" unto his own right. Science is great at falsifying claims; not so good at proving them.

 

[theIdi0t]

Granted, this is specified in a more assertive manner than most hypotheses. However, I believe that they are honest and will report on their findings even if not supportive of their position, as they have in the past.

Do you know of a single time ICR reported on a finding that was not supportive of their position? Tell me pop, do you think that creationist donors will be all too happy about ICR reporting findings that support the other side, while placing doubts on their own position? particularly when they refer to the other side as part of a satanic conspiracy? Sorry pop, a telltale sign that persons will not coincide points to the other side, and mention things that would cast doubts on their position is how strongly they oppose the other side.

If you believe you're fighting Satan you will use all means available to do so even if it involves half truths and brushing things under the rug.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, many times. Check out the research papers on their site. There are plenty of examples. Or, if you prefer - just peruse this one -- it includes lots of data that was not favorable, but rather was inconclusive.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

Interesting quote from page 23:
"It is expected that knowledge, outlooks, conclusions, and research approaches will change as the project proceeds."
Hmmm, this hardly seems like folks who are ignoring data/lying or any of the other things they have been accused of in this forum.

 

[Mallon]

I simply don't see how anything useful can possibly come of this project (who knows how much it costs?) if they are not somehow screening the samples they are given. Again, what's to stop someone from sending in samples of horse DNA?

 

[Deamiter]

I don't see why any study like this could be called "unscientific." They've got a hypothesis and they're testing it in some way. Now, if it's to be useful in the end, they'll have to publish in detail their methods and as part of the doing of science, they'll have to withstand scrutiny from the larger scientific community.

I too don't quite see how they can verify that the samples are legitimate, or having assumed that bit, show that humans could not have a common ancestor with other apes with this data. As with other ICR projects they seem rather tight-lipped about their precise methods. I don't mind calling it a scientific inquiry, but I think even they know that it will never convince professional scientists if they don't bother to carefully document the procedure and why their evidence collected must lead to the conclusions they draw.

 

[mark kennedy]

The following was published in ICR's July newsletter:



Also note the following from John Morris on the ICR website (bolding mine):



My question, especially for those YECs out there, is whether you feel this is science. Should ICR call what they are doing "creation science," in light of the fact that they have already stated their conclusions?

Try linking to their actual articles on the subject if you want to discuss this:

The new ICR GENE project will attempt more complex numerical simulations and apply the findings to man. Some of these studies may explore the DNA changes in the mitochondria back to Eve and the Y chromosome back to Adam. We also plan to use "bioinfor-matics" to compare the sequences of man and chimpanzee. We plan to show that the large differences between these two genomes could not have arisen by mutation and selection—not even in six million years.

The new computing center at ICR will be a great resource for these studies and other genetic data searches. In addition, laboratory studies are planned in which the accumulation of mutations can be measured directly through DNA analysis. Dr. Dan Criswell, professor of molecular biology at ICR, plans to begin developing a lab this year which will be able to prepare DNA samples for off-site sequencing. If you wish to donate to this effort, please contact Dr. Larry Vardiman at 619/448-0900 or LVardiman@icr.edu.​

ICR GENE Project

The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.3 However, preliminary research at ICR using genomic databases and the current literature indicates that the sequence homology between humans and chimpanzees may be less than 90%, as more genomic regions, such as heterochromatin (regions of condensed noncoding DNA) and unresolved alignment gaps are included in homology studies.​

Genomics at ICR
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

 

[Mallon]

Try linking to their actual articles on the subject if you want to discuss this

Thanks, mark.

 

[mythbuster]

In addition, laboratory studies are planned in which the accumulation of mutations can be measured directly through DNA analysis. Dr. Dan Criswell, professor of molecular biology at ICR, plans to begin developing a lab this year which will be able to prepare DNA samples for off-site sequencing.

Measurements. Sure sounds like science to me.
M