"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

[xianghua]

...

I literally just explained that they are using evolutionary distances based on phylogenetic trees which are by definition common descent relationships. How can you possibly turn around and say this has no connection to common descent?

we can do the same even if evolution isnt true. we can meassure the mutation rate even if those animals appeared by a designer at once and not evolved from a common descent. its basically a neutral mutations. neutral mutations can be add to the genome even according to the design
scenario. if you think its false, explain why we cant do it if the design scenario is true.

 

[pitabread]

we can do the same even if evolution isnt true. we can meassure the mutation rate even if those animals appeared by a designer at once and not evolved from a common descent. its basically a neutral mutations. neutral mutations can be add to the genome even according to the design
scenario.

We're not just talking about the mutation rate though. We're talking about comparing genomes, and using the mutation rate in conjunction with divergence times to perform that analysis.

If we're comparing two related species, under evolution we are effectively starting from a single, ancestral genome that diverged into two separate genomes. We can then make a meaningful comparison based on that divergence, because we know those divergent genomes had the same starting point.

On the other hand, if we're talking about two independently created genomes, we have no idea what those ancestral genomes looked like. We can't make a meaningful comparison between genomes in an evolutionary sense (i.e. neutral evolution, selective pressures, etc) as we don't know what our starting point would have looked like.

At best in a design scenario, you could do a side-by-side comparison and look for similarities and differences. But you wouldn't be using any phylogenetic data to do so.

The pylogenetic approach to analyzing genomes works precisely because of common ancestry. Without common ancestry, such an analysis would have no meaning.

 

[xianghua]

On the other hand, if we're talking about two independently created genomes, we have no idea what those ancestral genomes looked like. We can't make a meaningful comparison between genomes in an evolutionary sense (i.e. neutral evolution, selective pressures, etc) as we don't know what our starting point would have looked like.

i dont think so. we know that even among very different creatures the genome is very similar. sponge and human for instance shared about most of their genome:

70% of Human DNA Same as Sea Sponges

so even under the id scenario we can predict that most of the animals were very similar at the first place. therefore we can get the same result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i dont think so. we know that even among very different creatures the genome is very similar. sponge and human for instance shared about most of their genome:

70% of Human DNA Same as Sea Sponges

so even under the id scenario we can predict that most of the animals were very similar at the first place. therefore we can get the same result.

Until there is a testable hypothesis there is no "id scenario". All you have is hand waving and reinterpretation after that fact. That is not how science is done. Here let me help you:

Do you see the third step? It is in yellow. You need to construct a hypothesis. And please note step four. That tells you that your hypothesis must be testable, and be tested.


What is the falsifiable hypothesis for ID? What tests could falsify it?

 

[pitabread]

so even under the id scenario we can predict that most of the animals were very similar at the first place. therefore we can get the same result.

Again, it's not the same thing because there is no phylogenetic data to overlay in the analysis under the "ID scenario". It's just a basic pair-wise comparison. Not the same thing as an evolutionary approach.

You can keep trying to equate these, but they are not and will never be the same thing.

 

[xianghua]

Again, it's not the same thing because there is no phylogenetic data to overlay in the analysis under the "ID scenario". It's just a basic pair-wise comparison. Not the same thing as an evolutionary approach.

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

There is no "id scenario". To have a "scenario" you need a testable hypothesis. What is the id testable hypothesis? What reasonable test could falsify it?

 

[Jimmy D]

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

What does your ID model tell us about the genetic similarities and differences of these beasts for example?


Thylacine

Wombat

Dingo

Beaver

 

[pitabread]

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

You're just going in circles here with base assertions. You don't understand the relevance of phylogenetic data as applied to comparative genomics.

Suffice to say, what you are suggesting is not only incorrect, it doesn't even make any sense.

 

[variant]

To be fair creationism has their own economic - literally - flagship.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/cre...ke-news-for-failing-ark-encounter-theme-park/

A purposefully landlocked ship is a great symbol for the creationist movement.

 

[xianghua]

What does your ID model tell us about the genetic similarities and differences of these beasts for example?

we need to check first their internal morphology and their appearance in the fossil record to make a prediction.

 

[xianghua]

You're just going in circles here with base assertions. You don't understand the relevance of phylogenetic data as applied to comparative genomics.

Suffice to say, what you are suggesting is not only incorrect, it doesn't even make any sense.

what doenst make any sense? do you think that its logical to conclude that if a rat and human are about 90% identical then we can conclude that a lots of animals should be similar too?

secondly: lets say that evolution is false. are you aware about the fact that we can still produce this medicine?

 

[Jimmy D]

we need to check first their internal morphology and their appearance in the fossil record to make a prediction.

If you had that information what predictions do you suggest you could make?

 

[pitabread]

what doenst make any sense? do you think that its logical to conclude that if a rat and human are about 90% identical then we can conclude that a lots of animals should be similar too?

...

Look, if you want to keep trying to argue whatever it is you're trying to argue, then just provide the following:

• Detailed methodology of comparative genomics that addresses things like identification of functional regions, functional prediction, etc.
• Details of how said methodology is utilized with respect to genomes of relative similarities or differences (for example, primates, murids, and whatever other animal groups you want).
• Citations of said methodologies being utilitized in the real world and specifically how such methods address the very issues which phylogenetic based comparative genomic approaches were designed to resolve in the first place.

When you've gotten around to demonstrate whatever it is you are trying to argue, then we can go from there.

In the mean time, none of this changes the basic fact that evolutionary-based approaches to genomics research is a real thing and it's something that's been employed now for over a decade now.

secondly: lets say that evolution is false. are you aware about the fact that we can still produce this medicine?

That's not the point. This whole discussion started with your claim that "evolution doesnt[sic] have any connection to making medicine".

I simply pointed out that this isn't true: evolution has in fact been incorporated into drug discovery processes by the pharmacological industry. This is a basic, real-world fact. That is all.

 

[sfs]

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here.

And if you have wings, you can fly. But since you neither have wings nor the ability to make predictions under the id scenario, what's your point?

 

[xianghua]

...

Look, if you want to keep trying to argue whatever it is you're trying to argue, then just provide the following:

no. all i have to do is tou show that even under the id model we can get the same result. and we indeed get it.

...
I simply pointed out that this isn't true: evolution has in fact been incorporated into drug discovery processes by the pharmacological industry. This is a basic, real-world fact. That is all.

[/QUOTE]

so you are saying that even if evolution is wrong we can still use it to produce medicines? do you think it's a logical argument?

 

[pitabread]

no. all i have to do is tou show that even under the id model we can get the same result.

That's what I just asked you to show me, but so far you haven't demonstrated anything.

So go head. Give me a demonstration of the so-called "id model" with respect to genomics, annotation of functional regions of the genome and application to real-world biological industries.

 

[xianghua]

That's what I just asked you to show me, but so far you haven't demonstrated anything.

So go head. Give me a demonstration of the so-called "id model" with respect to genomics, annotation of functional regions of the genome and application to real-world biological industries.

i already explained that we can predict that most of the animals on earth will be similar. therefore we can check by the molecular clock where are the important genomic regions in the genome.

 

[pitabread]

i already explained that we can predict that most of the animals on earth will be similar. therefore we can check by the molecular clock where are the important genomic regions in the genome.

You haven't really explained anything yet. I'm asking how this would work.

For example, say you had several genomes for comparison: human, chimpanzee, western gorilla, and Bornean organutan.

How would the 'id model' be specifically used to perform a genomic comparison? What is the methodology used? How do molecular clocks tie into the analysis?

Show me the details of how this would work.

 

[xianghua]

You haven't really explained anything yet. I'm asking how this would work.

For example, say you had several genomes for comparison: human, chimpanzee, western gorilla, and Bornean organutan.

How would the 'id model' be specifically used to perform a genomic comparison? What is the methodology used? How do molecular clocks tie into the analysis?

Show me the details of how this would work.

good example. we can predict that if we will find a gene that is identical between chimp, human and gorila (comparing to others genes in their geneomes that arent identical), then we can conclude that this gene have an important meaning.