Is Genetic Research a Scam?

[JohnR7]

Luca Cavalli-Sforza interviewed Peter Underhill for the job of a senior research scientist in the department of genetics at Stanford University. The one thing he seemed to want to know: was Underhill a nice guy. So how does that relate to genetics?

First of all, Underhill does not really discover anything new, or propose any new theorys. He just uses DNA research to confirm a scientific theory that was already established by archological research. For example, even Darwin thought that perhaps all people migrated out of Africa. Now what does DNA research suggest? That all people migrated out of Africa.

Then they see a problem in the middle east where the Jews and the Muslims are always fighting one another. What is the new discover in DNA? Why there is no difference between a Jew and a Arab, so why don't you guys get along better?

Then Underhill teams up with a professor of archology to study how did farming begin in Europe. One theory was that people from the middle east migrated to Europe and brought farming with them. Sure enough, they look into the tea leaves, I mean into the DNA and find "evidence" that this theory was true.

The reason I am even reading about their research is that it supports things that I am working on. But I wonder how valid the research is. Sense they know ahead of time what they are looking to prove and they always seem to say the DNA shows what they were wanting to prove is indeed true.

One more example. There has long been a theory that native americans migrated down from the north. So what has Underhill found? Sure enough, native American have a DNA indicator that shows they are closely related to Alaska Eskimo. Confirming once more that the theory he was trying to prove was true.

My question is, does the DNA really prove anything or is Underhill just looking for a common trait so he can say there is proof. I think it is time this guy start to use the double blind test that all other scientists have to use.

 

[RufusAtticus]

My question is, does the DNA really prove anything

Yes.

or is Underhill just looking for a common trait so he can say there is proof. I think it is time this guy start to use the double blind test that all other scientists have to use.

Such a question leads me to believe that you don't understand the methods behind genetic analysis, more specifically phylogenetics and phylogeography. A double blind test is when both the researcher and patient are unaware of who is taking the real treatment or a placebo. I am confused how you can think such a system could even be applied to questions about genetic heritage.

What happens in studies like the ones you describe is that individuals are chosen with respect to the initial requirements, i.e. Jews and Palestinians. Then genes are chosen by the researchers and sequenced from each of the researchers; this forms the data. Then statistical and computational tests are applied to the data to determine if differences are significant or what individuals are most similar to other ones. Now where do you think there is a problem with researcher bias?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The reason I am even reading about their research is that it supports things that I am working on. But I wonder how valid the research is. Sense they know ahead of time what they are looking to prove and they always seem to say the DNA shows what they were wanting to prove is indeed true.

So what's the difference between this guy and a "Christian Scientist" who begins with the belief that the Bible is literally true, and rejects as wrong any evidence to the contrary?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
So what's the difference between this guy and a "Christian Scientist" who begins with the belief that the Bible is literally true, and rejects as wrong any evidence to the contrary?

The difference is that the Bible is written history. The evolutionist disregards the accurate historical account to speculate on a bunch of dead mans bones that they find somewhere.

So one is based on written and recorded history, the other is based on the imagination and speculation.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Now where do you think there is a problem with researcher bias?

They are using a new methoid: DNA to look into something that archology has been doing a study on for years. The new information should overturn a lot of the old theorys and send them scrambling to come up with new theorys to explain the new information that they are finding. Instead, the DNA just comfirms what they already believed to be true. It just sounds to much like they are getting their data to say whatever they want it to say.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by JohnR7
They are using a new methoid: DNA to look into something that archology has been doing a study on for years. The new information should overturn a lot of the old theorys and send them scrambling to come up with new theorys to explain the new information that they are finding. Instead, the DNA just comfirms what they already believed to be true. It just sounds to much like they are getting their data to say whatever they want it to say.

First off, evolution has very little to do with archeology... I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are tied at the hip...

And the DNA evidence should have overturned the theory of evolution only if it was grossly wrong. Again, wou seem to think that most scientists are bumbling idiots... Why?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by JohnR7
They are using a new methoid: DNA to look into something that archology has been doing a study on for years. The new information should overturn a lot of the old theorys and send them scrambling to come up with new theorys to explain the new information that they are finding. Instead, the DNA just comfirms what they already believed to be true. It just sounds to much like they are getting their data to say whatever they want it to say.

The ideas in archaeology that you are speaking of were not overturned because they were accurate. You seemed to have a problem with archaeology not being wrong in these instances. But you still never said where the bias was creeping into the genetic analysis.

However, you do realize that genetics not only confirmed some archaeological ideas but also resolved questions. One such thing was the multiregional-out of africa debate.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
However, you do realize that genetics not only confirmed some archaeological ideas but also resolved questions. One such thing was the multiregional-out of africa debate.

Well, fact or fiction, it is interesting and no one is getting hurt. Everyone enjoys a good story teller. Maybe Peter Underhill can weave some new stories together for us.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
First off, evolution has very little to do with archeology...

Archeology seems to have everything to do with DNA now a days.

Again, wou seem to think that most scientists are bumbling idiots... Why?

Because they have knowledge, but no wisdom. Not all scientists reject wisdom, but a lot do. If you remember, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Well, fact or fiction, it is interesting and no one is getting hurt. Everyone enjoys a good story teller. Maybe Peter Underhill can weave some new stories together for us.

No one is getting hurt????? What lead you to believe that? Definately the people who advocated the multi-regional hypothesis were proved wrong.

Anyways, why do you suspect that archaeology would be rife with errors that genetics must fix?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Archeology seems to have everything to do with DNA now a days.

I think you mean paleontology. The Old World continents had been long settled by the arrival of the oldest of the artifacts studied by archaeology. LewisW is correct, to the best of my knowledge, in saying that archaeology has little or nothing to do with evolutionary science. Paleontology, on the other hand, has quite a bit to say on the subject.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Anyways, why do you suspect that archaeology would be rife with errors that genetics must fix?

A lot of it is just fancyful story telling. They dig up some old artifacts, then they tell you a story about them to make it more interesting. I just wonder if it's fact of fiction.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by JohnR7
A lot of it is just fancyful story telling. They dig up some old artifacts, then they tell you a story about them to make it more interesting.

Nope, that's not how it works.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nope, that's not how it works.

Now rufus, don't interrupt John when he's building a strawman.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by JohnR7
A lot of it is just fancyful story telling. They dig up some old artifacts, then they tell you a story about them to make it more interesting. I just wonder if it's fact of fiction.

Your statements don't indicate that you are wondering at all.  They indicate outright that you consider most of archaeology to be "fanciful storytelling."  Since this is your new area of expertise, why don't you tell us the point at which the process of analyzing archaelogical discoveries diverges into storytelling.  How do you distinguish what is legitimately learned from archaeological analysis and what is simply an embellishment?

And while we're on the subject, what methods used by Underhill in his analysis of the migration of agrarian culture into Europe do you object to?  Also, which hypothesis regarding the introduction of argrarian culture from the Middle East to Europe you see more support for: the movement of agrarian ideas from culture to culture into Europe or a physical migration of people bringing agriculture into Europe?

-brett

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Now rufus, don't interrupt John when he's building a strawman.

I don't know about a strawmen, but my son keeps wanting me to help him build a snow man.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by euphoric
How do you distinguish what is legitimately learned from archaeological analysis and what is simply an embellishment? 

We have the Holy Spirit of Truth, and the written word of God to guide us and lead us into all truth. So when they get off on a tangent and start to talk nonsense we know it is not true.

 

[chickenman]

silly, thats all I have to say

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
We have the Holy Spirit of Truth, and the written word of God to guide us and lead us into all truth. So when they get off on a tangent and start to talk nonsense we know it is not true.

Translation: When real-world evidence contradicts the Bible, disregard the evidence.

 

[Live!]

DNA is a myth. It was concocted by scientists to try to prove evolution.

The "real-world evidence" is always being misinterpreted and/or even

being altered by evolutionists.