Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
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.
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.
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 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 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 thought you said we do not have the whole gene map on any of those animals.
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 the7,800 gene families that are conserved between the sea anemone and bilaterians23 have homologues in Trichoplax as detected by BLAST.
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.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?
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).Is that true? Could you tell me some more about the whale story? What is the argument from paleontologists?
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.
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.
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.
Why were these researches performed? Because paleontologist suggested that croc and bird share common ancestor.
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.
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.
I raised this question. But Split Rock boldly deny the possibility. The denial is totally unfounded.
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.
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.
That is why I said this type of argument is backward. What if people started to compare genes of croc and lizard seriously?
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?
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.
I am not saying this is not a scientific method. Basically creationists are doing the same thing.
The critical problem is where does the conclusion come from at the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm really interested in this as well. I suggest ignoring Juv until he answers these two very simple questions.
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?
Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship.
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.
I agree, but now I'm confused. You said science education is based on faith... but science is not. Why the difference?Faith is on something you do not see. Science is the thing you do see. There is no need of faith on science.
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?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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?