Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not a peer reviewed journal.
A review paper is not original research.
Not a peer reviewed journal.
Want to try again?
Bump for justatruthseekerShow me where I made the claim Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing the Milky-Way was the entire universe?????? Go ahead show us??? I think your adding and putting words in my mouth in your pathetic strawman. Let's see what I said, find that post and post it here. I think you'll find it says nothing of the sort - just a strawman by you.
Right here: "Scientists once got Nobel prizes for discovering the milky-Way was the entire universe. How'd that turn out - despite the fact that all the scientists agreed it was well deserved????"
I don't understand your point. You requested that
the research be published by Creationists.
And by publish, I mean publish in a peer reviewed journal. That's what that phrase means in scientific conversations.
Such journals publish research that backed by investigations or experiments.
How would we identify the religious belief of a scientist who believes God
was the Creator? I wasn't aware that disclosure was required.
my question to all of this is "how can you make any prediction at all with such things as HGT, gene mutation, and base pair insertions?"Let's focus on three species: human (H. sapiens), mouse (M. musculus), and chicken (G. gallus). Let's also use the DNA comparison to negate the effect of synonymous mutations in the protein sequence.
The similarity between the human and mouse gene is 90.5%. The similarity between the human and chicken gene is 81.6%.
Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?
of course they conclude that.I asked for creationists, not Christians. You do know the difference, do you not?
Every peer reviewed paper has a section where the authors discuss their results and make their conclusions. Are you telling me that you can't find a single paper where the authors conclude that the evidence points to separate creation? They all conclude that species evolved from a common ancestor?
And yet we are able to make this kind of prediction quite easily, and they turn out to be correct in the overwhelming majority of cases. Perhaps you should refine your understanding of the effects of HGT, gene mutation and base pair insertions. As you have been told many times, HGT is so rare in vertebrates that it can usually be ignored. Do you not understand that, or not believe it, or what?my question to all of this is "how can you make any prediction at all with such things as HGT, gene mutation, and base pair insertions?"
these things would make predictions almost impossible.
my question to all of this is "how can you make any prediction at all with such things as HGT, gene mutation, and base pair insertions?"
these things would make predictions almost impossible.
of course they conclude that.
hypothesis are often reworded to specifically exclude anything creationists can use.
yes, they conclude, and i agree, that common ancestry is the most logical answer, but the empirical evidence for this belief is lacking.
i hardly call 20,000 insertions trivial.And yet we are able to make this kind of prediction quite easily, and they turn out to be correct in the overwhelming majority of cases. Perhaps you should refine your understanding of the effects of HGT, gene mutation and base pair insertions. As you have been told many times, HGT is so rare in vertebrates that it can usually be ignored. Do you not understand that, or not believe it, or what?
because a single base pair insertion can completely "rearrange" an entire sequence.The other parts of your question are more puzzling. Gene mutation is precisely the basis of Loudmouth's ability to predict genetic similarity: the genetic divergence he's talking about is the result of accumulated mutations to the gene. Base pair insertions are one class of mutations, i.e. they're not a separate thing. So why do you think mutations would make it difficult to make a prediction about gene similarity?
i hardly call 20,000 insertions trivial.
because a single base pair insertion can completely "rearrange" an entire sequence.
if this base pair happens at a start or stop bit it can drastically alter the genetic code.
since you cannot predict where this insertion will be, then you cannot possibly predict the outcome.
20,000 insertions of what, where and when?i hardly call 20,000 insertions trivial.
(You mean it can drastically alter the protein, not the genetic code.) True. In which case the mutation is very likely deleterious and will be removed by natural selection.because a single base pair insertion can completely "rearrange" an entire sequence.
if this base pair happens at a start or stop bit it can drastically alter the genetic code.
In the rare event that a single-base insertion is not removed by selection, it will appear as a single mutational difference between the two copies of the gene, and will be included in the measured divergence that Loudmouth described.this also is hardly trivial.
It doesn't matter where the insertion will be. Loudmouth wasn't comparing protein function; he was comparing DNA sequence. A single-base insertion in the DNA shows up as a single-base insertion -- easy to spot and easy to count.since you cannot predict where this insertion will be, then you cannot possibly predict the outcome.
it's apparent i made the incorrect assumption that this thread is about predicting the outcome of genetic mutations.
there is one important point that everyone should know, and it's highly relevant to this topic.
this is a statistical analysis.
it's very easy to draw false statistical conclusions using such analysis.
DNA analysis, by it's very nature, must be statistical one, simply because it has no "standards".What statistical test did I use, and what is the probability that it is wrong?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?