Use it for what, specifically? What research are creationists doing based on this model?
So what research are IDers doing to show how this steroid receptor really came about?
Upvote
0
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.
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
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 GRs 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 couldnt. 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 cant reach it, because several amino acids would have to be altered before the target activity kicked in.
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.
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."
Yes, through an evolutionary analysis between vertebrate species as the article demonstrated.
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
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.
All genes are deemed positively selected in Darwinism. That's why they are there according to the paradigm.
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 fitin... better" than evolution.
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.
My comparison is on the red text. The design of the project is the most prominent advantage for a creationist.
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.
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.
Develop hypothesis.creationist has a much wider choices
If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. (This is the N time I said this! So far, nobody can disprove it)
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.
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"?
What are criteria used to produce such a relationship?
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.
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.
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.
All the alternatives NEED evolution.
At this moment, creation is enough. I don't worry about which version.
BTW, is Adam spontaneously generated?
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.
Geology can contribute one vital factor to disprove (biological) evolution: A young earth, such as a 10 m.y. old earth.
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.
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?