The science of creationism: where is it?

[Split Rock]

Faith is the foundation of science education. You do not see, worry or talk about the foundation of a house all the time. But it has to be there first, or it has to be developed in order to support things built on it.

I do not know what definition of "faith" you are using here, or what "faith" you are referring to that science education is based on. Please clarify.

 

[Hespera]

juv sez...I have seen you dancing around in this thread for a while. Sorry that I don't find anything you said worth to reply. I do not mean to ignore you.QUOTE//////////


hespera sez..

You are not sorry and you do mean to ignore. In your book its a sin to lie. And its you doing the dancing, around the question, that is. Predictably.

Why dont you just tell us the truth? ARE you a real professor? DO you have a real PhD? two simple words, yes yes or no no.

The more you evade the question the more obvious it is what the answer is.

 

[Washington]

Faith is the foundation of science education. You do not see, worry or talk about the foundation of a house all the time. But it has to be there first, or it has to be developed in order to support things built on it.

Yes it is, but it isn't the same type of faith you profess in the cases of creationism. To cite Dictionary.com:

faith: Spelled; Pronunciation [feyth]

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

​

While #1 is the type of faith one would have toward the foundation of a home, 3, 5, and 8 are the types of faith one may have toward religious items: those lacking any concrete examples or evidence, but rely entirely on say-so. I can point to house foundations that demonstrate their proposed ability, which justifies my faith that they actually do what they are said to do, whereas I have yet to see any subjects based on religious faith that have an equal reliability. So, we have two very different forms of faith here: one is grounded in observable fact, and the other is grounded in say-so.

 

[Naraoia]

I thought you said we do not have the whole gene map on any of those animals.

I said that we don't have a complete SPONGE genome. You asked a question I didn't quite understand about the similarity we'd expect to find between ourselves and "the most primitive animal" or something like that. I pointed out that the sort of question you asked is not easy to answer even with full genome sequences. And then, out of curiosity, I checked whether we have full genome sequences for "the most primitive animals" at all.

I didn't say anything about other animals. In fact, the chicken and zebra finch genomes are up on Ensembl. For reptiles, there is one on green anole lizards.

BTW, back to primitive animals: while I couldn't find a sponge genome, there is a project and an open-access paper I could find for the Trichoplax genome. Here are some numbers from that paper:

We estimate that the Trichoplax genome contains 11,514 protein coding genes, on the basis of a combination of homology-based and ab initio methods (Supplementary Information). Nearly 87% of these predicted genes have detectable similarity to proteins known from other animals, and most (83%) of the

7,800 gene families that are conserved between the sea anemone and bilaterians23 have homologues in Trichoplax as detected by BLAST.

They also performed phylogenetic analysis by three different methods, using 104 genes (although on a few organisms), and found Trichoplax to be, in your terminology, the second "most primitive" kind of animal alive after sponges. It seems we share a lot of genetic similarities with even the farthest branches on the animal tree.

[BTW, from this article it appears that there IS a sequenced sponge genome (that of Amphimedon queenslandica). Somewhere. Does anyone know where to find it?]

In fact, I guess we only have a small fraction (or even less) of their gene maps. Correct? If so, how do we know the unknown part of the genes in those animals won't give different conclusions?

The answer is we don't. However, the chance that they will seems smaller with every gene examined that gives the same conclusion; and considering that it's rather difficult to pick and choose genes to support a hypothesis, a sample of several genes with unrelated sequences and functions is quite suggestive.

Is that true? Could you tell me some more about the whale story? What is the argument from paleontologists?

I can't tell you more than what you'd find, say, in the Wikipedia entry on Cetartiodactyla (or, if you don't like Wikipedia, try the Animal Diversity Web entry and references therein).

 

[BananaSlug]

It is not reasonable to ask those questions. If croc and bird were not similar, but croc and horse were similar, you can ask the same question.

If God was all powerful he could have simply made everything not similar. It is not just that birds are crocodiles are genetically related, it is also backed up by the fossil evidence and modern taxonomy. If crocodiles and horses were genetically similar but severely contradicted the fossil evidence we would all be like . Your comparison is not reasonable.

You can not separate creation from God. God makes croc and bird similar in a certain way. That is it. We simply discovered that they are similar and be amazed by the way things are created.

Why would he make birds and crocodiles related when he could just as easily made them totally unrelated? Birds have such a totally different design from crocodiles yet the fossil evidence and genetic evidence suggests they had a common ancestor (via EVOLUTION). You claimed that similarly designed animals should have similar genes. So far every study has concluded that crocodiles are more closely related to birds. It seems to me that have uncommon designs and common genes, why?

Again, this extended reasoning is based on the hypothesis that they are similar. We do not really know. My genetic questions are not satisfied yet.

Five studies are not enough?

Why were these researches performed? Because paleontologist suggested that croc and bird share common ancestor.

No, most were trying to see if the Homeotherma hypothesis was correct. The Homeotherma hypothesis was that mammals and birds were sister clades.

So, these people took samples from croc and from bird, and tried to find evidences for that, so we can have genetic evidences to support paleontological suggestions.

They took random gene sequences and compared them.

Noticed what are the general type of conclusion: they all said: croc shared these genes with bird but not with lizard. But none of them said: croc share that genes with lizard but not with bird.

They would have mentioned if crocodiles shared any genes with lizards but not with birds. In fact, one study specifically compared a crocodilian with a lizard...
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.

Did you just accidentally ignore that study?

I raised this question. But Split Rock boldly deny the possibility. The denial is totally unfounded.

Well the above study never mentioned any such phenomena.

So, in simply logic, these articles say: A so B. But they did not say B so A. So the sharing of gene between croc and bird "suggests" their relationship. But it does not exclude a similar relationship, which might exist between croc and lizard.

They suggested A is more similar to B. B is not more similar to C. It doesn't exclude a similar relationship between crocodiles and lizards, that is why most of the studies used gene sequences from several different animals.

Now, has anyone tried to do the same to croc and lizard? I don't believe so. Why? Because there is no point to do that (hard to get $ support) since paleontologist has already concluded that they are not as closely related.

Yes. Here it is again...
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship.
Are you going to retract your statement?

That is why I said this type of argument is backward. What if people started to compare genes of croc and lizard seriously?

They did. We have the mitochondrial genomes of iguanas, anoles, green lacertas, and a few others.

I believe there could be more than 10 articles that show they share some DNAs (or whatever) but were not the case between croc and bird. What would be the conclusion then?

So are you saying that maternal relationships based on the mitochondrial DNA are flawed as well? It is one method they use for parental testing. If we throw these studies out the window then we should stop parental testing based on the same methods.

In general, genetic arguments made to support paleontological suggests are partial and prejudiced. They use other people's conclusions, and try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

Are you accusing the scientists of falsifying evidence?

I am not saying this is not a scientific method. Basically creationists are doing the same thing.

Except if scientists are wrong they change the way they think. Creationists "know" they will never be wrong.

The critical problem is where does the conclusion come from at the first place.

Scientists use independent studies to provide more evidence to support or reject hypotheses. Pangolins used to be in Edenta. Now they are in their own order Pholidota and are closely related to carnivores. That is an example of how traditional taxonomy is changed due to more accurate molecular/genetic relationships.

 

[uke2se]

juv sez...I have seen you dancing around in this thread for a while. Sorry that I don't find anything you said worth to reply. I do not mean to ignore you.QUOTE//////////


hespera sez..

You are not sorry and you do mean to ignore. In your book its a sin to lie. And its you doing the dancing, around the question, that is. Predictably.

Why dont you just tell us the truth? ARE you a real professor? DO you have a real PhD? two simple words, yes yes or no no.

The more you evade the question the more obvious it is what the answer is.

I'm really interested in this as well. I suggest ignoring Juv until he answers these two very simple questions.

 

[juvenissun]

You said I do not have faith. I agree. AVET's position is that I have as much faith as he has, just that it is in other scientists' research as opposed to his faith in The Bible. In other words, his faith in god and original sin is the same as my faith in data reported from other researchers. This is of course equivocation; the deliberate mixing up of different definitions of the word "faith." I don't know what dad's position on the issue is.

Faith is on something you do not see. Science is the thing you do see. There is no need of faith on science.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not know what definition of "faith" you are using here, or what "faith" you are referring to that science education is based on. Please clarify.

Science brings up questions. There is no end of it. Faith gives the ultimate answer. We do not want our children to think that there are only questions in this world, but has no answer.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't say anything about other animals. In fact, the chicken and zebra finch genomes are up on Ensembl. For reptiles, there is one on green anole lizards.

BTW, back to primitive animals: while I couldn't find a sponge genome, there is a project and an open-access paper I could find for the Trichoplax genome. Here are some numbers from that paper:

​

They also performed phylogenetic analysis by three different methods, using 104 genes (although on a few organisms), and found Trichoplax to be, in your terminology, the second "most primitive" kind of animal alive after sponges. It seems we share a lot of genetic similarities with even the farthest branches on the animal tree.

Thank you very much for the info.

It is a surprise to know such a large percentage of genes are shared by all animals. (can't help to think about this: how about plants? How much gene shared between plants and animals?)

So, let me thrown out some wildly guessing numbers: there are 90% genes shared by croc and bird, but there are 88% shared between croc and lizard. Would you say that croc is so much related to bird but not to lizard?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm really interested in this as well. I suggest ignoring Juv until he answers these two very simple questions.

Be my guest. Ignore me.

 

[juvenissun]

They would have mentioned if crocodiles shared any genes with lizards but not with birds. In fact, one study specifically compared a crocodilian with a lizard...
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.

Did you just accidentally ignore that study?

I do not understand much on any of the five studies you cited. I just browse them and get the information I can understand and I want.

So, if you don't mind, let me start to learn this one better:

Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship.

How significant are the number 2889 and 35? How many amino-acid sites in total and how many mitochondrial genomes are possibly there?
How many amino-acid sites from how many mitochondrial genomes supported the croc-lizard relationship? If you do not know, or if the article did not say, please do not say none.

 

[juvenissun]

juv sez...I have seen you dancing around in this thread for a while. Sorry that I don't find anything you said worth to reply. I do not mean to ignore you.QUOTE//////////


hespera sez..

You are not sorry and you do mean to ignore. In your book its a sin to lie. And its you doing the dancing, around the question, that is. Predictably.

Why dont you just tell us the truth? ARE you a real professor? DO you have a real PhD? two simple words, yes yes or no no.

The more you evade the question the more obvious it is what the answer is.

Ph.D. or whatever, is just a title. It does not really mean much.
Naraoia is an undergraduate student. But to me, she is equivalent to a Ph.D. student. The quality of knowledge can not be measured by academic degree. Many B.S. today in US are not qualified to be a B.S.

 

[uke2se]

Ph.D. or whatever, is just a title. It does not really mean much.
Naraoia is an undergraduate student. But to me, she is equivalent to a Ph.D. student. The quality of knowledge can not be measured by academic degree. Many B.S. today in US are not qualified to be a B.S.

It's a very simple question. Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a professor? Given that the definition of those terms are pretty unambiguous, you should be able to provide an answer instead of dancing around, and risk being called a liar.

 

[Split Rock]

Faith is on something you do not see. Science is the thing you do see. There is no need of faith on science.

I agree, but now I'm confused. You said science education is based on faith... but science is not. Why the difference?

Science brings up questions. There is no end of it. Faith gives the ultimate answer. We do not want our children to think that there are only questions in this world, but has no answer.

How does that explain how science education is based on faith? Are you saying we need to include non-science in science classes so children aren't made uncomfortable with the many unanswered questions in science or life in general?

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez...Ph.D. or whatever, is just a title. It does not really mean much.
Naraoia is an undergraduate student. But to me, she is equivalent to a Ph.D. student. The quality of knowledge can not be measured by academic degree. Many B.S. today in US are not qualified to be a B.S." QUOTE///////////////////



hespera sez... You know, my Dad says that a person should take pride in whatever he is, and do his best at it.

We know you are not a professor, never thought you were. No need to try to denigrate the PhD to try to raise yourself. No need to try to tell us what a BS is worth, or not worth. Those of us with degrees already know, far better than you.

Take pride in what you are, whatever that really is. Present your ideas, they will stand on their own merit or lack of same. Resorting to claims of the highest possible level of education or to some special wisdom given of god is a shabby substitute for reasoned argument and real data. So is attempting to be condescending or to present as a teacher.

So! That settled? Dont try to bring them into a debate again and no more will be made of your 'credentials".

 

[BananaSlug]

I
How significant are the number 2889 and 35? How many amino-acid sites in total and how many mitochondrial genomes are possibly there?
How many amino-acid sites from how many mitochondrial genomes supported the croc-lizard relationship? If you do not know, or if the article did not say, please do not say none.

Here is the whole research paper. Your question is answered in the "results" section but I would recommend reading the whole thing.
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny ? Proceedings B

The caiman mitochondrial genome consisted of 17 875 nucleotides.
The iguana mitochondrial genome consists of 16 633 nucleotides.
The also used phylogenetic analyses from 33 other species.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree, but now I'm confused. You said science education is based on faith... but science is not. Why the difference?


How does that explain how science education is based on faith? Are you saying we need to include non-science in science classes so children aren't made uncomfortable with the many unanswered questions in science or life in general?

No.

We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular scientific contents. In this structure, the theory of evolution is welcome.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is the whole research paper. Your question is answered in the "results" section but I would recommend reading the whole thing.
The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny ? Proceedings B

The caiman mitochondrial genome consisted of 17 875 nucleotides.
The iguana mitochondrial genome consists of 16 633 nucleotides.
The also used phylogenetic analyses from 33 other species.

OK. Thanks.

 

[uke2se]

No.

We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular scientific contents. In this structure, the theory of evolution is welcome.

But that would make it not science. Religion isn't science after all.

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez...We should teach science in class. But we should also teach student that science is created by God. This message should be on the first chapter and on the last chapter. The middle part is the regular scientific contents. In this structure, the theory of evolution is welcome. quote///////////////////////


Hespera sez....On the understanding that you are not including yourself in the "we", as a teqcher...

WHY should anything about god be part of a science book?

do you think that (your) god should be in every book in every subject or just science?


if people want to have their gods, not just yours in the books, then what?

Oh... one more thing. if the theory of christianity can be kept in the literature, comparative religions or mythology courses, then it is welcome. i kind of enjoyed bible lessons in grade school.