How do you do creation science research?

[Loudmouth]

It's funny you should ask that. We use the Orchard. Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE's Claims of "Nested Patterns" Supporting a "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views

Use it for what, specifically? What research are creationists doing based on this model?

Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent - Part 2

In the paper Bridgham et al (2009) continue their earlier work on steroid hormone receptor evolution. Previously they had constructed in the laboratory a protein which they inferred to be the ancestral sequence of two modern hormone receptors abbreviated GR and MR (Bridgham et al 2006). They then showed that if they changed two amino acid residues in the inferred ancestral receptor protein into ones which occur in GR, they could change its binding specificity somewhat in the direction of modern GR’s specificity. (All the work was done on molecules in the laboratory. No measurements were made of the selective value of the changes in real organisms in nature. Thus any relevance to actual biology is speculative.) They surmised that a gene duplication plus sequence diversification could have given rise to MR and GR. As I wrote in a comment at the time ( CSC - Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity ), that was interesting work, and the conclusion was reasonable, but the result was exceedingly modest and well within the boundaries that an intelligent design proponent like myself would ascribe to Darwinian processes. After all, the starting point was a protein which binds several steroid hormones, and the ending point was a slightly different protein that binds the same steroid hormones with slightly different strengths. How hard could that be?

Well, it turns out that Darwinian evolution can have a lot of trouble accomplishing even that simple task, or at least its opposite. In the new paper the authors try the reverse experiment. They begin with the more modern hormone receptor (which is more restrictive in the steroids it binds) and ask whether a Darwinian process could get the ancestral activity back (which is more permissive). Their answer is no, it couldn’t. They show that a handful of amino acid residues in the more recent receptor would first have to be changed before it could act as the ancestral form is supposed to have done, and that is very unlikely to occur. In other words, the new starting point is also a protein which binds a steroid hormone, and the new desired ending point is also a slightly different protein that binds steroid hormones. How hard could that be? But it turns out that Darwinian processes can’t reach it, because several amino acids would have to be altered before the target activity kicked in.​

So what research are IDers doing to show how this steroid receptor really came about?

 

[Greg1234]

By "we", do you mean creationists? Here is what the evolutionary scientists researched:

"Related species, such as humans and chimpanzees, often experience the same disease with varying degrees of pathology, as seen in the cases of Alzheimer's disease, or differing symptomatology as in AIDS. Furthermore, certain diseases such as schizophrenia, epithelial cancers and autoimmune disorders are far more frequent in humans than in other species for reasons not associated with lifestyle.

Actually there is someone else determining the cause of diseases and has something to say about the current method.

The German New Medicine a new Natural Science" by Professor Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz

Genes that have undergone positive selection during species evolution are indicative of functional adaptations that drive species differences. Thus we investigate whether biomedical disease differences between species can be attributed to positively selected genes."

All genes are deemed positively selected in Darwinism. That's why they are here according to the paradigm.

Yes, through an evolutionary analysis between vertebrate species as the article demonstrated.

No need. There are various differences among different species, which means different diseases. These diseases are then seen as lesser versions of other diseases.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually there is someone else determining the cause of diseases and has something to say about the current method.

The German New Medicine a new Natural Science" by Professor Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz

Care to point to anything in that article that is cogent to this discussion? Does Dr. Hans explain how creationism is being used in medical research?

All genes are deemed positively selected in Darwinism. That's why they are here according to the paradigm.

Firstly, they are comparing orthologs (i.e. the same gene across multiple species). They are not assuming that all differences are due to positive selection. They correctly assume that some differences are due to neutral drift. From the paper:

"Here we report
results following a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing
which is known to be conservative and hence, prediction
of positive selection is particularly robust. The
corollary of such a strict approach is the potential generation
of false negatives. The alternative branch-site model
has four codon site categories, the first two for sites evolving
under purifying selection and neutral selection on all
the lineages and the additional two for sites under positive
selection on the foreground branch. The null model
restricts sites on the foreground lineage to be undergoing
neutral evolution. Each branch-site model was run at least
three times to ensure convergence of log-likelihood values
at or within 0.001."

So they ran tests to make sure that the differences they were seeing were due to positive selection instead of neutral selection.




No need. There are various differences among different species, which means different diseases. These diseases are then seen as lesser versions of other diseases.[/quote]

 

[Greg1234]

Firstly, they are comparing orthologs (i.e. the same gene across multiple species). They are not assuming that all differences are due to positive selection. They correctly assume that some differences are due to neutral drift. From the paper:

"Here we report
results following a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing
which is known to be conservative and hence, prediction
of positive selection is particularly robust. The
corollary of such a strict approach is the potential generation
of false negatives. The alternative branch-site model
has four codon site categories, the first two for sites evolving
under purifying selection and neutral selection on all
the lineages and the additional two for sites under positive
selection on the foreground branch. The null model
restricts sites on the foreground lineage to be undergoing
neutral evolution. Each branch-site model was run at least
three times to ensure convergence of log-likelihood values
at or within 0.001."

So they ran tests to make sure that the differences they were seeing were due to positive selection instead of neutral selection.

CEH | How Not to Prove Positive Selection

Contrary to a widespread impression, natural selection does not leave any unambiguous “signature” on the genome, certainly not one that is still detectable after tens or hundreds of millions of years. To biologists schooled in Neo-Darwinian thought processes, it is virtually axiomatic that any adaptive change must have been fixed as a result of natural selection. But it is important to remember that reality can be more complicated than simplistic textbook scenarios.​

All genes are deemed positively selected in Darwinism. That's why they are there according to the paradigm.

 

[Loudmouth]

All genes are deemed positively selected in Darwinism. That's why they are there according to the paradigm.

No, they are not as I have already shown. Scientists use statistical tests to determine if a specific allele is under positive selection or being passed on through neutral drift.

You still have not shown how creationism can be used in similar studies which is the actual topic of this thread. Like almost every thread, whenever we ask for creationism to act like science we get this bait and switch. Creationists know that creationism is devoid of any scientific content, so they attack evolution to hide this fact.

 

[juvenissun]

Develop a research question. a creationist is far more better on this basic one
Develop hypothesis.creationist has a much wider choices
Create protocol.
Apply for grant.
Get grant.
Procure subjects and materials.
Run experiment.
Analyze data.
Write paper discussing results in context of the field.
Submit paper.
Hopefully get published.
Wash, rinse, and repeat.

All the rest are about the same.

I'd like to see how "creationism fit in... better" than evolution.

My comparison is on the red text. The design of the project is the most prominent advantage for a creationist.

 

[juvenissun]

How would they use creationism to study the same topic? How would creationists use creationism to predict protein function, or figure out why some diseases are more severe in humans than in other species?

It's not enough to show that a competing theory is wrong. You still have to show that your theory produces results.

That is the key. And it is enough.

If a study follows a design according to evolution and discovered problem, that mean the idea of evolution is probably not right. That is enough for a creationist.

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. (This is the N time I said this! So far, nobody can disprove it)

In geology (my field), if an evolutionist say this feature will take 100 m.y. to make. If I can demonstrate that it would only take 1 m.y. to make, then the evolution model is wrong. If he is wrong, then I (a creationist) am right. That is how a creationist can study the same subject with fellow evolutionists.

 

[Loudmouth]

My comparison is on the red text. The design of the project is the most prominent advantage for a creationist.

Can you give an example? Can you show us an hypothesis and the experiments that are used to test that hypothesis? What is the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified?

The design of a project always revolves around what the scientist can test for. An idea without experiments to test that idea is worthless. What separates the great scientists from the bad scientists is how they test their ideas.

The problem I see with creationism is that the mechanism is untestable. For example, why are the genomes of humans and chimps different? God did it. How do you test for that? What experiments can you run to test "God did it"?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is the key. And it is enough.

No, it isn't. To support Relativity it wasn't enough to show that Newton's forumlas produced bad results (e.g. Mecury's orbit). Einstein still had to show that his theory of relativity produced the correct predictions and was testable.

If a study follows a design according to evolution and discovered problem, that mean the idea of evolution is probably not right. That is enough for a creationist.

It might be enough for creationists, but it is not enough for science. Since this thread is about scientific research you will have to go the extra step.

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right.

Let's go back 150 years and see how this idea works. At the time, Lamarckian evolution was quite popular. However, experiments disproved Lamarckian evolution. According to your logic, this would have proved creationism, but it didn't. As it turned out, there was another possible natural mechanism, that of Darwinian evolution. We could also use the Newtonian physics example from above. If we disprove Newtonian mechanics does this prove the existence of gravity fairies? No. You still need to show that your idea is correct even in the absence of another explanation.

What you are pushing is known as a false dichotomy which is a logical fallacy.

In geology (my field), if an evolutionist say this feature will take 100 m.y. to make. If I can demonstrate that it would only take 1 m.y. to make, then the evolution model is wrong.

Evolutionists are biologists, not geologists. Maybe you want to rethink that one?

Also, you have just made my point. You still have to show that the formation would take 1 m.y. to make. Simply showing that the formation will not take 100 m.y. to make is not enough to show that it will only take 1 m.y. to make.

If he is wrong, then I (a creationist) am right.

You are ignoring the possibility that you are both wrong.

 

[Delphiki]

Develop hypothesis.creationist has a much wider choices

"God did it" is apparently one of those choices, what other hypothesis can a creationist come up with?

 

[Delphiki]

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. (This is the N time I said this! So far, nobody can disprove it)

False dichotomy... and a very commonly used one at that.
If evolution is wrong, then how is creationism right by default? They would both be on equal footing, neither with supporting evidence.

Panspermia, spontaneous generation, and even the Matrix would be equally valid hypothesis at that point. And even if the only other option was creationism, then which version? Hindu? Shinto? Ancient Greek/Roman? Turtles? Why specifically the Christian myth?

There. Disproven.

 

[juvenissun]

It bolded that section in the part you quoted. They produce a tree that represents the evolutionary relationships between species. They use this information to figure out where a protein sequence has been duplicated. From this information they then make predictions about changes or preservation of protein function.

What are criteria used to produce such a relationship?

 

[juvenissun]

Can you give an example? Can you show us an hypothesis and the experiments that are used to test that hypothesis? What is the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified?

The design of a project always revolves around what the scientist can test for. An idea without experiments to test that idea is worthless. What separates the great scientists from the bad scientists is how they test their ideas.

The problem I see with creationism is that the mechanism is untestable. For example, why are the genomes of humans and chimps different? God did it. How do you test for that? What experiments can you run to test "God did it"?

That is not a serious argument.
For me, I would simply say I don't know. And I will try to find it out by designing a 100% scientific experiment.
But, the key argument is: Do You Know?
If you don't know either, then you can not say creationism is wrong.

How do I design the experiment? (as one who knows nothing about genome)?
I will try to find flesh of sequentially extinct ape species (according to evolution), and compare their genomes. (has this been done?)

Agreed or not, this is how a creationist can do scientific research. It can only be better than what evolutionists can do.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are criteria used to produce such a relationship?

Shared and derived characteristics, be it DNA sequence or morphology. This process is described om simple terms here:

http://www.bu.edu/gk12/eric/cladogram.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

No, it isn't. To support Relativity it wasn't enough to show that Newton's forumlas produced bad results (e.g. Mecury's orbit). Einstein still had to show that his theory of relativity produced the correct predictions and was testable.



It might be enough for creationists, but it is not enough for science. Since this thread is about scientific research you will have to go the extra step.



Let's go back 150 years and see how this idea works. At the time, Lamarckian evolution was quite popular. However, experiments disproved Lamarckian evolution. According to your logic, this would have proved creationism, but it didn't. As it turned out, there was another possible natural mechanism, that of Darwinian evolution. We could also use the Newtonian physics example from above. If we disprove Newtonian mechanics does this prove the existence of gravity fairies? No. You still need to show that your idea is correct even in the absence of another explanation.

What you are pushing is known as a false dichotomy which is a logical fallacy.



Evolutionists are biologists, not geologists. Maybe you want to rethink that one?

Also, you have just made my point. You still have to show that the formation would take 1 m.y. to make. Simply showing that the formation will not take 100 m.y. to make is not enough to show that it will only take 1 m.y. to make.



You are ignoring the possibility that you are both wrong.

No. I don't have to show the process takes 1 m.y. instead of 100 m.y. I only need to demonstrate it does not take 100 m.y., then his model bursts up.

My "false" dichotomy is based on that there will be NO SUBSTITUTE if the current evolution model is wrong. In your case, there emerged another evolution model. Then creationists will still try to shoot it down. That is a (quite easy) way to prove creationism.

Geology can contribute one vital factor to disprove (biological) evolution: A young earth, such as a 10 m.y. old earth.

 

[juvenissun]

False dichotomy... and a very commonly used one at that.
If evolution is wrong, then how is creationism right by default? They would both be on equal footing, neither with supporting evidence.

Panspermia, spontaneous generation, and even the Matrix would be equally valid hypothesis at that point. And even if the only other option was creationism, then which version? Hindu? Shinto? Ancient Greek/Roman? Turtles? Why specifically the Christian myth?

There. Disproven.

All the alternatives NEED evolution. So if evolution is done, then they are all done.

At this moment, creation is enough. I don't worry about which version.

BTW, is Adam spontaneously generated? I kind of like that one. Spontaneous, that is the word for creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

But, the key argument is: Do You Know?
If you don't know either, then you can not say creationism is wrong.

That is not the question that science is asking. Science asks, "How could you know?". That is at the heart of science, finding a way to test your ideas to figure out if they are right or wrong.

How do I design the experiment? (as one who knows nothing about genome)?

First, you need to figure out what the mechanism of creation is. Then, you need to figure out what pattern of similarity and differences this mechanism should produce when species (both living and extinct) are compared to one another.

I will try to find flesh of sequentially extinct ape species (according to evolution), and compare their genomes. (has this been done?)

Here is a big paper comparing two ape genomes (Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens):

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Agreed or not, this is how a creationist can do scientific research.

You still haven't shown how a scientist can do scientific research using creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

All the alternatives NEED evolution.

A Matrix universe would not need evolution.

At this moment, creation is enough. I don't worry about which version.

It seems that you don't worry about the lack of evidence supporting creationism either.

BTW, is Adam spontaneously generated?

Did Paul Bunyan have a blue ox?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I don't have to show the process takes 1 m.y. instead of 100 m.y. I only need to demonstrate it does not take 100 m.y., then his model bursts up.

However, any alternative age must be supported by evidence. Creationism is an alternative mechanism to evolution, therefore it must be supported by evidence.

My "false" dichotomy is based on that there will be NO SUBSTITUTE if the current evolution model is wrong.

Then there is no substitute. You have to do research and support any substitute with evidence.

In your case, there emerged another evolution model.

Yep. This is why it is called a false dichotomy. There is always a chance that both answers are wrong.

Geology can contribute one vital factor to disprove (biological) evolution: A young earth, such as a 10 m.y. old earth.

Then show how a young earth could be falsified. Describe a geologic formation that should not exist if the Earth is only 10 my old.

 

[juvenissun]

That is not the question that science is asking. Science asks, "How could you know?". That is at the heart of science, finding a way to test your ideas to figure out if they are right or wrong.



First, you need to figure out what the mechanism of creation is. Then, you need to figure out what pattern of similarity and differences this mechanism should produce when species (both living and extinct) are compared to one another.



Here is a big paper comparing two ape genomes (Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens):

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature



You still haven't shown how a scientist can do scientific research using creationism.

Since you are pushing, then I will give you a definition of creationism.

Creationism = science + God.

Can you see that creationism includes science but is bigger than science? Like you said, do you like to know how to discover God? According to the definition, you can not study it in science. Since evolution claimed to be scientific, if I can knock it down, then God is the only choice for evolutionist without evolution.

In short, a creationist could be a scientist (same as every other scientist) but with God in his mind. I don't have to prove God. So your challenge is not really a valid one.