The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

Because 10% isn't science. A science book, especially one designed to teach children about science, cannot contain religion. Religion isn't science, and thus, the book would be unscientific, if only 10% unscientific. It would also be unconstitutional, which I believe is an equally grave issue.

I hope you realize this: What you are asking for is against the US constitution, and most other western constitutions.

I guess you are a politician. I don't need your confession or confirmation. You talked like one. That is enough. I have nothing to do with politician of any kind.

 

[juvenissun]

So, now you want the more fuzzy concept of "some god or gods" created science taught in science class? What about Deists, Agnostics and Atheists? Is your concept common to all of them as well? Man created science... and we have the written history to prove it. Why do we need to talk about some loosely defined defintion of "god" creating a human endeavor?


Church is where you teach about God. Do I really need to be telling you this??


It has every thing to do with church. What is the one book that is the basis of creation science? The Bible. Are you going to tell me The Bible has nothing to do with church, now??

Bad arguments. I will stop on this sub-thread.

 

[juvenissun]

The stupid thing is that it isn't necessary to have any relevant degree, or any degree at all, to educate yourself enough through reading, and learning from people who have degrees, in order to be able to converse intelligently and with a reasonable knowledge base in forums like this one.

What is the point of pretending to know things you really don't know? What is the point of being coy about your educational status?

I've stated before in this forum that I went to a Fine Arts institution, where I studied Fine Arts, not biology or geology or paleontology or any life science at all. But I've always been interested in those sciences, always read books about them, talked to people who worked in these fields about their work.

I've yet to run into anyone who dismisses my acquired knowledge on the basis of my having acquired it outside of standard education. I don't in any way expect to know as much about biology as a biologist, or about botany as a botanist, etc. I regularly ask people in those fields to explain various things I don't know, because that is a useful method of gaining information (thank you again, sciencey type people ;-)).

People ordinarily respect actual knowledge, not the format in which one has acquired that knowledge. It is just convenient that people with degrees are known to have gone out of their way to become knowledgeable in specific fields, so we expect them to know the facts.

 

[juvenissun]

If you throw out "wildly guessing numbers", there's no point in answering the question...

No, we shouldn't. Unless you are prepared to give the evidence that supports this?

A science book should only teach as facts things that are, you know, established as facts. "Establishing as fact" is done by presenting tons of evidence. Where is that evidence for ANY supernatural entity?

I'm pretty sure it's 3500 nucleotides per genome.

Even that, it is only about 20%. There are 80% unknowns. Why can't they examine, say, 50% of them? Is that done by computer?

 

[Alunyel]

I guess you are a politician. I don't need your confession or confirmation. You talked like one. That is enough. I have nothing to do with politician of any kind.

Uke had a perfectly valid point.

You simply choose to ignore it because you have absolutely no rebuttal to it, and it mentions the constitution... oh, and it has a percent sign in there.

The clear marks of an evil politician.

Percent signs and the constitution.

 

[Naraoia]

Even that, it is only about 20%. There are 80% unknowns. Why can't they examine, say, 50% of them? Is that done by computer?

Hmm, this is the iguana and caiman mitochondrial genome paper we are talking about, right? I quickly looked through the methods, and I didn't find anything about 3500 nucleotides.

What I did find was an alignment of 2889 amino acids. One amino acid is encoded by 3 nucleotides, so this is the equivalent of 8667 nucleotides (although you lose some information when you translate a nucleotide sequence to AAs) I also found an additional 1000+ nucleotides from non-protein-coding genes. So they did analyse about half of the mt genomes in question.

 

[Hespera]

When does a person starts to notice that he isnt right about much of anything and begins to wonder why he is still able to convince himself with saying "i am right because i am right"

 

[juvenissun]

Hmm, this is the iguana and caiman mitochondrial genome paper we are talking about, right? I quickly looked through the methods, and I didn't find anything about 3500 nucleotides.

What I did find was an alignment of 2889 amino acids. One amino acid is encoded by 3 nucleotides, so this is the equivalent of 8667 nucleotides (although you lose some information when you translate a nucleotide sequence to AAs) I also found an additional 1000+ nucleotides from non-protein-coding genes. So they did analyse about half of the mt genomes in question.

OK, my ignorance. But, why didn't they analyze all the amino acids in the 35 mt genomes? How many mt genomes are there in total?

 

[Split Rock]

Bad arguments. I will stop on this sub-thread.

Obviously you have no answer... just Special Pleading.

 

[juvenissun]

Obviously you have no answer... just Special Pleading.

Are you able to teach me more about genetics?

 

[Naraoia]

OK, my ignorance. But, why didn't they analyze all the amino acids in the 35 mt genomes?

Because not all of it could be aligned. Sequences that can't be matched with each other are apples and oranges - no point comparing them. IIRC, they even excluded two species from the analysis because including them would've made the alignment even shorter.

But you do notice you're shifting the goalposts here? You first asked why they didn't analyse 50% of the animals' mtDNA, now that it turns out they did, 50% is suddenly not enough?

How many mt genomes are there in total?

And this question makes me think you are a bit confused, although I can't quite figure out where the confusion lies

 

[juvenissun]

Because not all of it could be aligned. Sequences that can't be matched with each other are apples and oranges - no point comparing them. IIRC, they even excluded two species from the analysis because including them would've made the alignment even shorter.

But you do notice you're shifting the goalposts here? You first asked why they didn't analyse 50% of the animals' mtDNA, now that it turns out they did, 50% is suddenly not enough?

And this question makes me think you are a bit confused, although I can't quite figure out where the confusion lies

Yes, I am shifting the goalpost, and I am confused too. These are the symptoms of learning. I wondered a little bit, but I will come back to the point after enough is learned.

I'll be back soon. I want to think about the meaning of matching the genome sequence.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, I am shifting the goalpost, and I am confused too. These are the symptoms of learning. I wondered a little bit, but I will come back to the point after enough is learned.

I'll be back soon. I want to think about the meaning of matching the genome sequence.

Fair enough. If you have any more questions, do come back and ask.

 

[Hespera]

Fair enough. If you have any more questions, do come back and ask.

Same with geology.

 

[juvenissun]

Because not all of it could be aligned. Sequences that can't be matched with each other are apples and oranges - no point comparing them. IIRC, they even excluded two species from the analysis because including them would've made the alignment even shorter.

But you do notice you're shifting the goalposts here? You first asked why they didn't analyse 50% of the animals' mtDNA, now that it turns out they did, 50% is suddenly not enough?

And this question makes me think you are a bit confused, although I can't quite figure out where the confusion lies

What does it mean when some genomes in different animals (such as croc and bird) can be aligned? Does it mean they have a common ancestor? If so, how do we explain those (the majority?) that can not be aligned?

Following the logic and the info you provided, we and sponge may have 60% similarity in DNA, does that mean some genomes between we and sponge can also be aligned? Then we push it back further, could some genomes between us and the very early bacteria also be aligned? Somebody must have compared the DNA of human with that of bacteria. (those people who study diseases, right?)

 

[Naraoia]

What does it mean when some genomes in different animals (such as croc and bird) can be aligned? Does it mean they have a common ancestor? If so, how do we explain those (the majority?) that can not be aligned?

It only means that the sequences are similar enough that we can call them different versions of "the same" sequence (in the same sense as a human arm and a bird's wing are different versions of "the same" body part). Sequence homology doesn't necessarily imply common ancestry; as with other traits, it's the pattern of similarities and differences that agrees too well with evolutionary predictions to be an accident.

Sequences that can't be aligned can result from all sorts of things. Different sequences evolve at different rates, and if a sequence is "fast" enough or the organisms diverged long enough ago, no detectable similarity remains between them. Fairly large chunks can also be inserted (for example, by a virus) or deleted in one of the organisms, and of course you won't find similarity between something and nothing.

Following the logic and the info you provided, we and sponge may have 60% similarity in DNA, does that mean some genomes between we and sponge can also be aligned?

Do you mean aligning sponge sequences to human sequences, or sequences from animals between humans and sponges to human sequences? (A "genome" is all genetic material an organism has, BTW)

In either case, the answer is yes (there's a reason they say the human and chimp genomes are over 90% similar!).

Then we push it back further, could some genomes between us and the very early bacteria also be aligned? Somebody must have compared the DNA of human with that of bacteria. (those people who study diseases, right?)

Yes. I'm a bit lazy to look up studies, but giving you an example takes a bit less work. Let's look at cytochrome c, a small protein found across the tree of life. I took this human cyt c protein sequence and searched (using BLASTp) for similar proteins in bacteria. The search turns up a number of bacterial cyt c proteins that are up to 51% identical and up to 70% chemically similar to the human protein.

(To put this into perspective: since living things use 20 amino acids to build proteins, two random protein sequences of the same length are expected to be about 5% (1/20) identical)

 

[juvenissun]

It only means that the sequences are similar enough that we can call them different versions of "the same" sequence (in the same sense as a human arm and a bird's wing are different versions of "the same" body part). Sequence homology doesn't necessarily imply common ancestry; as with other traits, it's the pattern of similarities and differences that agrees too well with evolutionary predictions to be an accident.

Sequences that can't be aligned can result from all sorts of things. Different sequences evolve at different rates, and if a sequence is "fast" enough or the organisms diverged long enough ago, no detectable similarity remains between them. Fairly large chunks can also be inserted (for example, by a virus) or deleted in one of the organisms, and of course you won't find similarity between something and nothing.

Do you mean aligning sponge sequences to human sequences, or sequences from animals between humans and sponges to human sequences? (A "genome" is all genetic material an organism has, BTW)

In either case, the answer is yes (there's a reason they say the human and chimp genomes are over 90% similar!).

Yes. I'm a bit lazy to look up studies, but giving you an example takes a bit less work. Let's look at cytochrome c, a small protein found across the tree of life. I took this human cyt c protein sequence and searched (using BLASTp) for similar proteins in bacteria. The search turns up a number of bacterial cyt c proteins that are up to 51% identical and up to 70% chemically similar to the human protein.

(To put this into perspective: since living things use 20 amino acids to build proteins, two random protein sequences of the same length are expected to be about 5% (1/20) identical)

Thank you very much. The red text turns out to be the most important information I learned in genetics so far. It is the lesson 1 stuff. But it is critical.

I am not going to ask more than one question because I can't digest so much. But here is the one:

So, in genome comparison among animals, some protein sequence can be matched in similarity, but some can not. Do we have any understanding on which parts have higher probability of matching and other parts usually don't? Or the parts that matching are random?

For example, the cyt c proteins have high % of matching between human and other animals, is there a protein sequence that routinely has low % of matching among lives.

 

[Naraoia]

Thank you very much. The red text turns out to be the most important information I learned in genetics so far. It is the lesson 1 stuff. But it is critical.

I am not going to ask more than one question because I can't digest so much. But here is the one:

So, in genome comparison among animals, some protein sequence can be matched in similarity, but some can not. Do we have any understanding on which parts have higher probability of matching and other parts usually don't? Or the parts that matching are random?

I'm afraid you've just asked something that I can't answer with any certainty. AFAIK, the general idea is that degree of conservation depends on the magnitude and type of selective pressure, which can differ between lineages, between different sequences in the same lineage, or even between different parts of the same sequence in the same lineage. If particular positions are essential to the function of the sequence (e.g. amino acids in the active site of an enzyme), they are more likely to be conserved; if a sequence loses its function (e.g. a gene becomes a pseudogene), it'll also lose its recognisable identity after a while. I'm sure someone has a less vague understanding of this, but I'm afraid it's not me.

(BTW, I said earlier that you'd expect 5% identity between two random protein sequences. On a second thought, that number is probably too low, because I don't think that living things use all amino acids with an equal frequency.)

 

[juvenissun]

I'm afraid you've just asked something that I can't answer with any certainty. AFAIK, the general idea is that degree of conservation depends on the magnitude and type of selective pressure, which can differ between lineages, between different sequences in the same lineage, or even between different parts of the same sequence in the same lineage. If particular positions are essential to the function of the sequence (e.g. amino acids in the active site of an enzyme), they are more likely to be conserved; if a sequence loses its function (e.g. a gene becomes a pseudogene), it'll also lose its recognisable identity after a while. I'm sure someone has a less vague understanding of this, but I'm afraid it's not me.

(BTW, I said earlier that you'd expect 5% identity between two random protein sequences. On a second thought, that number is probably too low, because I don't think that living things use all amino acids with an equal frequency.)

Thank you.

So, let me make a suggestion: If human still share 50% to 60% of protein sequence with the "lowest" level of life, would it mean that evolution is very selective, but not random at all?

 

[Naraoia]

Thank you.

So, let me make a suggestion: If human still share 50% to 60% of protein sequence with the "lowest" level of life, would it mean that evolution is very selective, but not random at all?

We never said evolution was random