The science of creationism: where is it?

[EnemyPartyII]

Very ignorant. Give you some education:

What happen if there were no data? What you do? Watching TV?

If there's no data, you go and look for some. You don't make pronouncements without data and hope you're right and proclaim it science

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I have only two hands. And I am working on one.

Einstein, Darwin, Eddison, Archimedes Bohrs... all only had two hands. Hawking doesn't even have that!

 

[Hespera]

If there's no data, you go and look for some. You don't make pronouncements without data and hope you're right and proclaim it science

Ahhh..... but you lack the Wisdom of Creation Science. With that Wisdom you can create data out of thin air.

Now, is it wise to continue this farce?

 

[Naraoia]

Which is why I did mention gene loss.

Whoops, sorry. I probably missed that because the "any gene shared by lizards and crocs will be there in birds" thing stuck out too much. Apologies.

Hespera, I would dearly love to show the correct level of respect to a scientist who claims you should depend on anything other than the data, however the forum rules and language filters do not allow it, nor has VR progressed to the point where you can backhand someone in real time over a standard broad band ISP, so sadly, the appropriate level of respect and deference will remain lacking.

Shall we arrange a meeting and record it?

 

[juvenissun]

Einstein, Darwin, Eddison, Archimedes Bohrs... all only had two hands. Hawking doesn't even have that!

You do not know what they did not have. Do you want to be one of them?
I don't. We (anyone) can only have so much. You pick up one, you will drop another one.

Sorry, I start to argue like a woman.

 

[juvenissun]

Very simple. Ancestry. We have inherited our genetic sequence from our ancestors. Thus, if say the primates evolved a new gene, it will be shared by us and chimps but not by horses. It is possible that a gene will be lost in chimps and retained in humans and horses, but that will be rare. Even if the gene is inactive, it will still be there. The gene would have to be completely deleted. That could happen, but is very unlikely. Lets say that there are 100 genes shared by humans and chimps and not by horses. Then there is 1 gene we share with horses and not with chimps. That could happen. What would that show, in your opinion?

So, without getting into quantitative argument, is it true that:

gene_shared(human/chimp) > gene_shared(human/horse) > gene_shared(human/croc) > gene_shared(human/fish) > ... > ... ?

 

[juvenissun]

If there's no data, you go and look for some. You don't make pronouncements without data and hope you're right and proclaim it science

Then I think you just disqualified S. Hawking as a scientist.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Then I think you just disqualified S. Hawking as a scientist.

n has Hawking ever made pronouncements without supporting data?

 

[juvenissun]

n has Hawking ever made pronouncements without supporting data?

I am just about to abandon you. Last try:

What do you do before you try to get your own research data? The data is not like something that sit on the shelf of a grocery store.

I will stop. Because I do not know why am I saying what I said.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am just about to abandon you. Last try:

What do you do before you try to get your own research data? The data is not like something that sit on the shelf of a grocery store.

I will stop. Because I do not know why am I saying what I said.

You form a hypothesis, then you design an experiment or form of observation that will provide data that either supports or disproves the hypothesis.

Sorry, what am I saying you have such a problem with? You seem to be taking my description of scientific methodology very personally

 

[BananaSlug]

The content or the abstract of the five quoted studies is not reader friendly. I don't have time to study them. So, you may take it as a good review exercise for yourself.

I think it went really well. Two studies focused on mitochondrial genomes, one focused on beta-keratins, one focused on C-mos sequence genes, and one was based on 10 sequenced genes. All five studies have shown the close genetic relationship of crocodiles and birds.

What I can see from browsing them is: Chaos. One paper talked about one thing and there is no structured argument and no summary conclusion.

No summary conclusion? I placed the conclusion of every paper under the title. Here's another example:

A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization
Nucleotide and amino acid sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C. porosus and squamates (green anole).

In fact, it is your fault for this situation. If you defend your thesis by simply thrown them out, you will fail. Don't forget that among the panel, there will be at least one person, just like me, don't have much idea on the details.

That is why I posted the astract of every paper along with a link to the whole paper (when I could get one).

I don't disagree that croc is more similar to bird, than to lizard.

So why would God make them that way?

I am simply trying to give you a hard time to consider the unknown factors, so you will know that this interpretation is not as solid as you think.

The only unknown factor is deleted genes. I already mentioned that and I will make this prediction:

Except for circumstances of gene deletion, there will not be any genes that lizards and crocodiles share that birds do not share.

I don't know much about genetics. So I will simply stick with one naive, but unanswered question here: I want to see a study which shows croc and lizard share some genes, that are not shared between croc and bird.

Well the chicken, alligator, and green anole genomes are pretty much completed.

If you don't think this situation could exist, then I want to see a proof.

Well then I would give it a year or two.

If this situation could exist, then croc and lizard could also have a common ancestor which is not related to bird.

Every study so far strengthens the crocodile/bird bond.

As far as the God related question, it should not be much a concern to you. In fact, it is so much easier to answer than the genetic question. I will answer it (if no one else did) when I abandon the argument on the genetic issue.

Well I look forward to the answer as to why God made crocodiles and birds so closely related if evolution were untrue.

 

[juvenissun]

You form a hypothesis, then you design an experiment or form of observation that will provide data that either supports or disproves the hypothesis.

Sorry, what am I saying you have such a problem with? You seem to be taking my description of scientific methodology very personally

Exactly. I am arguing with people on the hypothesis here, since there is no data for that yet.

 

[juvenissun]

I think it went really well. Two studies focused on mitochondrial genomes, one focused on beta-keratins, one focused on C-mos sequence genes, and one was based on 10 sequenced genes. All five studies have shown the close genetic relationship of crocodiles and birds.



No summary conclusion? I placed the conclusion of every paper under the title. Here's another example:

A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization
Nucleotide and amino acid sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C. porosus and squamates (green anole).




That is why I posted the astract of every paper along with a link to the whole paper (when I could get one).



So why would God make them that way?



The only unknown factor is deleted genes. I already mentioned that and I will make this prediction:

Except for circumstances of gene deletion, there will not be any genes that lizards and crocodiles share that birds do not share.



Well the chicken, alligator, and green anole genomes are pretty much completed.



Well then I would give it a year or two.



Every study so far strengthens the crocodile/bird bond.



Well I look forward to the answer as to why God made crocodiles and birds so closely related if evolution were untrue.

Well, in a study (or a debate), if you cited 5 references and made summary on each and presented all five summaries, you would get a failing grade. You need to make ONE summary out of all five, and use it to support your argument. You do not let the reader to do this work for you. The following is an example:

The way I see the five studies you cited is that they all go backwards in relative to the problem we are talking about. They identified a target (e.g. a particular gene, or a group of genes) and went to examine those genes in different (easy, available or favorable) animals. This type of study is trying to use examples to illustrate the alleged principle, but is not trying to prove the principle. So, no matter how many these types of studies are around, they, all together, can never prove anything.

So, tell me this: how much gene (in %, approximately) we possibly share with the most primitive animal (on the evolution tree) which is still alive today?

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry, I start to argue like a woman.

Well, in a study (or a debate), if you cited 5 references and made summary on each and presented all five summaries, you would get a failing grade.

This is not a study.

You need to make ONE summary out of all five, and use it to support your argument. You do not let the reader to do this work for you. The following is an example:

Eh, unless I'm reading a different forum than you, he did summarise the argument. And summarise it over and over and over again. If you're too lazy to go further and read his sources, don't blame it on him.

Also, stop playing the professor. Big hint: it doesn't make you look good.

The way I see the five studies you cited is that they all go backwards in relative to the problem we are talking about. They identified a target (e.g. a particular gene, or a group of genes) and went to examine those genes in different (easy, available or favorable) animals. This type of study is trying to use examples to illustrate the alleged principle, but is not trying to prove the principle. So, no matter how many these types of studies are around, they, all together, can never prove anything.

Because science is all about "proving" things?

Look, take these studies as data points on a huge plot. Yes, these may be just a few genes in a few organisms, but the more such comparisons are made, the more they illuminate about the relationships of the groups of organisms we are sampling.

We have a hypothesis about the family tree of these animals, which gives us predictions about the relative degree of similarity we should find between their genes, and people go out and test it. And test it some more. And then some more.

What exactly is backwards about doing that?

So, tell me this: how much gene (in %, approximately) we possibly share with the most primitive animal (on the evolution tree) which is still alive today?

What are you asking here?

Do you mean what percentage of our genes has an orthologue in sponges and vice versa?

Or how much sequence similarity there is between us and sponges?

(Or something else?)

(BTW, neither of these questions is trivial to answer, even with good quality complete genome sequences. Which we don't have for sponges as far as I can tell from a quick search in the NCBI genome database [the link leads to the list of sponge genome sequences in the database. All of them are mitochondrial genomes.])

 

[Hespera]

Also, stop playing the professor. Big hint: it doesn't make you look good.

Because science is all about "proving" things?


.])

On the internet you can fool some of the people some of the time.

On campus, playing prof would be ok at the coffee shop but he'd be smoked out in moments in an academic setting.

The slaughter that would take place if a person tried to fake thru a thesis defense would be too horrible to think about. Or more likely they'd just kind of wave the person away... dont waste any more of our time.

May as well get a hat and try to make believe to be a cowboy. They are sensitive gentle folks, no doubt they jolly a person along and get him the meanest horse.

What is there to say about a person who doesnt even know he's been "made", given himself away a thousand ways and nobody but nobody believes him?

 

[Split Rock]

So, without getting into quantitative argument, is it true that:

gene_shared(human/chimp) > gene_shared(human/horse) > gene_shared(human/croc) > gene_shared(human/fish) > ... > ... ?

Yes.

The way I see the five studies you cited is that they all go backwards in relative to the problem we are talking about. They identified a target (e.g. a particular gene, or a group of genes) and went to examine those genes in different (easy, available or favorable) animals. This type of study is trying to use examples to illustrate the alleged principle, but is not trying to prove the principle. So, no matter how many these types of studies are around, they, all together, can never prove anything.

We do not "prove" in science. In particular, one cannot prove a negative. All the data collected so far, however, supports common descent. If you think different, provide the references.

 

[BananaSlug]

Well, in a study (or a debate), if you cited 5 references and made summary on each and presented all five summaries, you would get a failing grade. You need to make ONE summary out of all five, and use it to support your argument. You do not let the reader to do this work for you.

Despite the fact I didn't use "proper" internet forum debate (we aren't in formal debate are we?) the argument still stands. Five different studies independently came to the same conclusion. That was the point.

The way I see the five studies you cited is that they all go backwards in relative to the problem we are talking about. They identified a target (e.g. a particular gene, or a group of genes) and went to examine those genes in different (easy, available or favorable) animals.

How did they go backward? They did everything in a scientific manner. They formed a hypothesis, tested it, and provided the results. One even used the COMPLETE mitochondrial genome of the american alligator. Another used over 2800 amino-acid sites from 35 different mitochondrial genomes. Another used the 10 genes presently sequenced from the nile crocodile genome and compared it to turtles and birds. This is not just comparing a gene or a group of genes.

This type of study is trying to use examples to illustrate the alleged principle, but is not trying to prove the principle. So, no matter how many these types of studies are around, they, all together, can never prove anything.

But they all came to the same conclusion. The more studies that are done with different gene sequences the more evidence we have to support the hypothesis. So far every study has shown the genetic similarity between birds and crocodiles.

So, tell me this: how much gene (in %, approximately) we possibly share with the most primitive animal (on the evolution tree) which is still alive today?

I'll answer that when you finally answer my question. If evolution is untrue, why has every study conducted so far consistently come to the conclusion that the closest living relatives of birds are crocodiles?

 

[juvenissun]

This is not a study.

Eh, unless I'm reading a different forum than you, he did summarise the argument. And summarise it over and over and over again. If you're too lazy to go further and read his sources, don't blame it on him.

Also, stop playing the professor. Big hint: it doesn't make you look good.

Because science is all about "proving" things?

Look, take these studies as data points on a huge plot. Yes, these may be just a few genes in a few organisms, but the more such comparisons are made, the more they illuminate about the relationships of the groups of organisms we are sampling.

We have a hypothesis about the family tree of these animals, which gives us predictions about the relative degree of similarity we should find between their genes, and people go out and test it. And test it some more. And then some more.

What exactly is backwards about doing that?

What are you asking here?

Do you mean what percentage of our genes has an orthologue in sponges and vice versa?

Or how much sequence similarity there is between us and sponges?

(Or something else?)

(BTW, neither of these questions is trivial to answer, even with good quality complete genome sequences. Which we don't have for sponges as far as I can tell from a quick search in the NCBI genome database [the link leads to the list of sponge genome sequences in the database. All of them are mitochondrial genomes.])

I am not playing professor. In fact, I am playing student. Not playing, I am a student, a troubling student. Don't forget, I don't know anything about genetics.

The last paragraph is what I want to see in this thread of argument: It says: there are a lot about genetics that we do not know. Back to where this thing started. BananaSlug said (with confidence) that croc is more related to bird than lizard. I said: don't be so sure. He continued: If croc is more related to bird, why would God allow this fact which proves(?) evolution?

See it? BananaSlug is trying to catch the wind. He built his punching question upon a hypothesis.

 

[juvenissun]

Despite the fact I didn't use "proper" internet forum debate (we aren't in formal debate are we?) the argument still stands. Five different studies independently came to the same conclusion. That was the point.



How did they go backward? They did everything in a scientific manner. They formed a hypothesis, tested it, and provided the results. One even used the COMPLETE mitochondrial genome of the american alligator. Another used over 2800 amino-acid sites from 35 different mitochondrial genomes. Another used the 10 genes presently sequenced from the nile crocodile genome and compared it to turtles and birds. This is not just comparing a gene or a group of genes.



But they all came to the same conclusion. The more studies that are done with different gene sequences the more evidence we have to support the hypothesis. So far every study has shown the genetic similarity between birds and crocodiles.



I'll answer that when you finally answer my question. If evolution is untrue, why has every study conducted so far consistently come to the conclusion that the closest living relatives of birds are crocodiles?

I don't expect your answer.

My answer to your question is: That is a reasonable way of creation. Why would God want to create life in a chaotic manner? God creates chimp. Then God creates man. Why not use the same structure of chimp to make man? I will not be surprised that we share 99.9% of gene with chimp. If God created different animals with a totally chaotic arrangement of genes, would that be more scientific?

Do not use science to against God. Science IS a creation of God. And God's creation is all good.

 

[BananaSlug]

I don't expect your answer.

My answer to your question is: That is a reasonable way of creation. Why would God want to create life in a chaotic manner?

Why would God want to make alligators so closely related to birds?

God creates chimp. Then God creates man. Why not use the same structure of chimp to make man?

Why would God want to make birds and crocodiles share so much genetically? Why would God want to make hippos and whales so close genetically? Whales have a more similar structure to fish than hippos. Why not use the same genetic structure for whales and fish?

I will not be surprised that we share 99.9% of gene with chimp. If God created different animals with a totally chaotic arrangement of genes, would that be more scientific?

It would evidence for creation. If whales were mammals but were more closely related to fish, it would be evidence for creation. God could have made humans and chimps 100% unrelated.

Do not use science to against God. Science IS a creation of God. And God's creation is all good.

This is not meant to be an argument against God (when did I ever say it was against God?). This is meant to be an argument against creation. The fossil evidence, the taxonomic evidence, and the genetic evidence points to birds and crocodiles having a common ancestor. Why would God create everything as if it supports evolution if evolution is false?