6 days Creation

[Tristen]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Hi Tristen,

No, just informing you (and anyone else reading) that the "humans and bananas share 50% of their DNA" argument is incorrect and should not be used. I'm working on the assumption that if you are making an error or reporting an error, you would want me to correct it. Is this not an acceptable assumption?

Honestly, there are slightly different ways to carry out the comparisons and come up with "percent identical" figures. Jeffrey Tomkins has estimated that the percentage similarity is as low as 80%. I have read a scientific explanation (from someone working in this field at a top US university) of mistakes that Tomkins made and why the number is quite a bit higher. But even the conservative 80% number would mean 4/5 nucleotides would be identical between the two genomes. Personally, this seems like a pretty darn good argument for common descent. This is especially true when regions like ERVs that would have no expectation to be similar are often highly similar between the genomes.

Tomkins published this paper in the Journal of Creation and I'm going to guess he isn't attempting to publish this work in a  peer-reviewed journal, so this would not be a concern.

Hi One,

“I'm working on the assumption that if you are making an error or reporting an error, you would want me to correct it”

So my issue was not with you correcting my "error", but with you being inspired by my one error to mount an attack on the integrity of creationism in general. That reaction was unjustified, and speaks to an oversensitivity against creationism. There is “misinformation” on all sides. I can’t be held responsible for the arguments of all creationists, but neither should creationism in general be held accountable for my mistake.

 

“Honestly, there are slightly different ways to carry out the comparisons and come up with "percent identical" figures”

But they still have to justify how they account for the extra dimensions of the genome I wrote about earlier – unless they’re only comparing very small portions of the genome. A simple percentage is always going to be an oversimplification.

 

“Jeffrey Tomkins has estimated that the percentage similarity is as low as 80%. I have read a scientific explanation (from someone working in this field at a top US university) of mistakes that Tomkins made and why the number is quite a bit higher.”

I can’t speak to what you “have read” without seeing the information myself.

 

“But even the conservative 80% number would mean 4/5 nucleotides would be identical between the two genomes”

This depends entirely upon how you use the math. The human genome is roughly 3 billion bases in length. 20% of 3 billion is 600 million. That’s how many differences there are if the 80% similarity figure is correct. Nevertheless, I would have to see how anyone justifies their percentage figures, given the difficulties I raised in the previous post.

 

“Personally, this seems like a pretty darn good argument for common descent”

“Personally” is correct. Similarities could just as easily be interpreted as the Designer using the same information system to give similar creatures in similar environments similar traits. The preference for one interpretation over the other is dependent upon the personal presupposition of the interpreter, not the superiority of the logic.

 

“This is especially true when regions like ERVs that would have no expectation to be similar are often highly similar between the genomes”

Before we get too far into another topic, I’d like to ask you if, given the facts, you still think I am obligated to accept the fusion conclusion?

To ERVs

So if you assume the Common Ancestry paradigm to be true, then you assume non-functional DNA to be leftover evolutionary “junk”, then you find that some “junk DNA” contains sequences which are very similar to viral DNA, and are conserved in many species, then you might conclude that these regions are the remnants of old viruses inherited through an ancestor in common. However, since we recently discovered that much of the so-called “junk DNA” is biologically active (including many so-called ERVs), then confidence in that conclusion can no longer be sustained beyond them just adding to the list of genetic similarities between species. That is, they now fall into the same category as other functional DNA similarities – which can therefore be just as easily described in terms of design, as it can in terms of Common Ancestry – depending upon your preferred premise.

 

“Tomkins published this paper in the Journal of Creation and I'm going to guess he isn't attempting to publish this work in a  peer-reviewed journal, so this would not be a concern”

The Journal of Creation is “peer-reviewed”, by experts in the relative fields (and not just by creationists, or even Christians). But notice your oversensitivity to creationism is causing you to deviate from rational consideration of the scientific claims, to unsubstantiated innuendo over the superiority of the secular context over the creationist.

No one would ever republish an entire chromosome in print, not even in a secular journal. And especially not one that has already been published. They give you the methods and provide details on where to access the data – so anyone wanting to repeat what was done can do so.

[one.opinion]

Hey Tristen,

Dropping the banana now, as it is no longer a "fruitful" topic of discussion :-)

5 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I can’t speak to what you “have read” without seeing the information myself.

I'm ok with that, I'm just going to have to ask you to trust me. As I tried to emphasize in my previous post, the similarity levels are high enough that quibbling over the 80%-95% range is superfluous.

 

7 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Personally, this seems like a pretty darn good argument for common descent”

 

“Personally” is correct.

Thanks for at least that much acknowledgement! I did include the word for a purpose, after all.

 

8 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“This is especially true when regions like ERVs that would have no expectation to be similar are often highly similar between the genomes”

 

Before we get too far into another topic, I’d like to ask you if, given the facts, you still think I am obligated to accept the fusion conclusion?

A couple of things I need to comment on here. First, I kinda confused my forums and brought the ERVs into our discussion, thinking I had done so previously. My mistake there. Second, of course you aren't obligated to do so! What I am explaining is the scientific details of why I believe what I believe. I've tried, as you've noticed from time to time, to temper my words to indicate that you aren't under any sort of obligation. I fully expect we can cordially agree to disagree.

 

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

However, since we recently discovered that much of the so-called “junk DNA” is biologically active (including many so-called ERVs), then confidence in that conclusion can no longer be sustained beyond them just adding to the list of genetic similarities between species.

Yes "much" is definitely the key word here. The retrotransposons, which include ERVs, SINEs, and LINEs, do appear to have some function in gene regulation (the ERVs more than the others) and make up about 40%-50% of the entire genome. It is a little backward logically to think that the regulatory regions would be much more prevalent than the actual coding regions. I would posit that it is more plausible that the retrotransposons were initially independent, "selfish" DNA, that was later co-opted by the cell.

59 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Tomkins published this paper in the Journal of Creation and I'm going to guess he isn't attempting to publish this work in a  peer-reviewed journal, so this would not be a concern”

 

The Journal of Creation is “peer-reviewed”, by experts in the relative fields (and not just by creationists, or even Christians). But notice your oversensitivity to creationism is causing you to deviate from rational consideration of the scientific claims, to unsubstantiated innuendo over the superiority of the secular context over the creationist.

 

No one would ever republish an entire chromosome in print, not even in a secular journal. And especially not one that has already been published. They give you the methods and provide details on where to access the data – so anyone wanting to repeat what was done can do so.

I should have included one adjective in my original statement. A more appropriate comment would have been "I'm going to guess he isn't attempting to publish this work in a standard, peer-reviewed journal." I was unable to find a list of editors or reviewers for the Journal of Creation, but I would be shocked (and delighted!) if any editors or reviewers where not creationists. I would be astounded if any of them were not Christian. Do you have a list?

In no way did I suggest that Tomkins should have published the entire chromosome sequence. What I said (twice) was that it was very curious that he didn't show any of the data, which could have easily been done in tables or diagrams. I can see no reason why this wasn't part of the paper.

[da_man1974]

On 8/11/2017 at 5:19 PM, Enoch2021 said:

So you "quote" my ENTIRE Post, utterly PUMMELING the Fairytale Spinning-Ball Religion, and this is your response.  

Why did you quote the whole post and not speak to a Whisper of It?

You could have "quoted" Beethoven's 9th or posted a Beaver Dam... it would have had the same relevance.

I don't get it, can you explain it to me...?

Then, and I know this is asking waaay too much but... can you post something of substance regarding anything I actually wrote...? 

 

Thanks

? wow. Just wow. 

Ever since you proposed your flat earth idea you lost your scientific credibility with the rest of us. 

[Enoch2021]

12 hours ago, da_man1974 said:

 Ever since you proposed your flat earth idea you lost your scientific credibility with the rest of us. 

Thanks!!   ...

The sine qua non of Science is "The Scientific Method".

The sine qua non of "The Scientific Method" is "Experiment" (Hypothesis Tests).

The sine qua non of Experiments are "Hypotheses".

 

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.

Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

 

The Scientific Method (Hypotheses) only adjudicate "How/Why" questions.  The shape of something (whether Flat or Sphere) is a "What/Is" question.

Your "scientific" appeal is tantamount to asking...

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??  

 

Who's "Scientific Credibility" is LOST again ???  

 

Thanks Again, Priceless !!

 

Quote

wow. Just wow.

1. Stays on topic, attention to excruciating detail with the subject. 

2. Bereft of any emotional rants (feigned or otherwise), sticks to clear purely objective unbiased assessments. 

3. Contains numerous well supported facts, 'well read'; erudite. 

4. Insightful yet unpretentious. 

5. Measured and well thought out. 

6. Not a whiff of any anecdotal evidence, stereotypes, or sweeping generalizations. "One-Liner" responses are strictly VERBOTEN.

7. Harbors no ill will. 

8. Leaves no stone covered, tenacious appetite for TRUTH. 

9. Your Credo --- "Veritas est utile". 

10. Palpable disdain for Name Calling -- Ad Hominems and Unsubstantiated Claims.

 

regards

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Hey Tristen,

Dropping the banana now, as it is no longer a "fruitful" topic of discussion :-)

I'm ok with that, I'm just going to have to ask you to trust me. As I tried to emphasize in my previous post, the similarity levels are high enough that quibbling over the 80%-95% range is superfluous.

 

Thanks for at least that much acknowledgement! I did include the word for a purpose, after all.

 

A couple of things I need to comment on here. First, I kinda confused my forums and brought the ERVs into our discussion, thinking I had done so previously. My mistake there. Second, of course you aren't obligated to do so! What I am explaining is the scientific details of why I believe what I believe. I've tried, as you've noticed from time to time, to temper my words to indicate that you aren't under any sort of obligation. I fully expect we can cordially agree to disagree.

 

Yes "much" is definitely the key word here. The retrotransposons, which include ERVs, SINEs, and LINEs, do appear to have some function in gene regulation (the ERVs more than the others) and make up about 40%-50% of the entire genome. It is a little backward logically to think that the regulatory regions would be much more prevalent than the actual coding regions. I would posit that it is more plausible that the retrotransposons were initially independent, "selfish" DNA, that was later co-opted by the cell.

I should have included one adjective in my original statement. A more appropriate comment would have been "I'm going to guess he isn't attempting to publish this work in a standard, peer-reviewed journal." I was unable to find a list of editors or reviewers for the Journal of Creation, but I would be shocked (and delighted!) if any editors or reviewers where not creationists. I would be astounded if any of them were not Christian. Do you have a list?

In no way did I suggest that Tomkins should have published the entire chromosome sequence. What I said (twice) was that it was very curious that he didn't show any of the data, which could have easily been done in tables or diagrams. I can see no reason why this wasn't part of the paper.

Hey One,

“Dropping the banana now, as it is no longer a "fruitful" topic of discussion :-)”

Nice.

 

“I tried to emphasize in my previous post, the similarity levels are high enough that quibbling over the 80%-95% range is superfluous”

Perhaps, but it was you who brought up the 4-out-of-5 nucleotide argument. The reason percentage similarities are “superfluous” is because similarities can be just as validly explained in terms of design, as they can in terms of common descent.

 

“of course you aren't obligated to do so! What I am explaining is the scientific details of why I believe what I believe”

If I’m not obligated to accept the facts as necessitating common descent between humans and chimps, then I’m not really sure why we’re discussing it. I perfectly understand that the facts can be interpreted to support the secular models.

My goal is to explain that the very same facts can be interpreted to support the model of Biblical creation (e.g. a functional chromosome is just that, a functional chromosome – just like our other 22 functional chromosomes). And that Biblical creation is therefore as rationally valid as the secular understanding of the facts. You have several times expressed bias against creationism; claiming it is dishonest and equating it with flat-earthism. My position is that there is no objective scientific reason to warrant a dismissal of the clear teaching of Genesis – i.e. we can trust the Genesis account without resorting to dishonesty and without ignoring facts or being anti-science (as many claim). However, if you prefer the secular interpretations, but are open to the rational validity of creationism, then we are in broad agreement (though with opposing preferences).

 

“It is a little backward logically to think that the regulatory regions would be much more prevalent than the actual coding regions”

I think there is a potential for regulation to be far more complex than coding itself. There can be multiple regulators for varying contexts (and even multiple regulators for a single context). There can be regulators of regulators. Some RNAs can themselves fold and behave like proteins. And there are possibly functions we haven’t thought of yet. It is unfortunate that we ignored it for so long – presuming it to be junk.

 

“I would be shocked (and delighted!) if any editors or reviewers where not creationists. I would be astounded if any of them were not Christian. Do you have a list?”

I read an article with a quote from a non-Christian reviewer years ago. I do not have a list. I can’t find the article atm. Might have more time later to take a better look. But I wonder if you ask for a list of reviewers from secular (aka “standard”) journals to ascertain their biases? Or is it only creationists who you consider to be so insulated by world-views?

 

“In no way did I suggest that Tomkins should have published the entire chromosome sequence. What I said (twice) was that it was very curious that he didn't show any of the data, which could have easily been done in tables or diagrams. I can see no reason why this wasn't part of the paper”

We were talking about the counts of telomere motifs across the chromosome. That data is in a table. Which is where I got the information.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think there is a potential for regulation to be far more complex than coding itself. There can be multiple regulators for varying contexts (and even multiple regulators for a single context). There can be regulators of regulators. Some RNAs can themselves fold and behave like proteins. And there are possibly functions we haven’t thought of yet. It is unfortunate that we ignored it for so long – presuming it to be junk.

This is all true, but these regulatory regions tend to be quite small in comparison with coding regions. It is also quite common for single regulatory regions to influence the expression of multiple genes. Bottom line - the argument of regulatory DNA being ~30X more prevalent than protein-coding (exon) DNA is still far-fetched. There are a large number of researchers that view catalytic RNA (ribozymes) as evidence of the RNA world. Personally, I view abiogenesis as much less likely than evolution from the first cells. But arguing complex folding of RNA will open up a can of worms in some circles.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

This is all true, but these regulatory regions tend to be quite small in comparison with coding regions. It is also quite common for single regulatory regions to influence the expression of multiple genes. Bottom line - the argument of regulatory DNA being ~30X more prevalent than protein-coding (exon) DNA is still far-fetched.

The ERV ("Junk DNA" smh) train is laying at the Top of this Page in ashes with your Common Decent Fairytale Tree; it's not even Coherent much less Scientific.

 

Quote

There are a large number of researchers that view catalytic RNA (ribozymes) as evidence of the RNA world.

1.  Yes and dark matter is created from nothing by luminescent gerbils.

2.  Apparently you (and these "Large Numbers" of Nameless/Faceless researchers ) haven't been keeping up on your CEC's (for over 20 years !!!)...

3.  Begging The Question (Fallacy), AND...At BEST, it's an Incoherent Straw Man:

"This discussion concerning the first RNA replicase ribozyme has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 13 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 

https://cshmonographs.org/inde x.php/monographs/article/view/ 3786/3003

 

Quote

Personally, I view abiogenesis as much less likely...

Try Physically/Chemically "IMPOSSIBLE" ... you can't even get ONE Functional DNA, RNA, or Protein Naturally/Spontaneously much less LIFE. 

 

Quote

than evolution from the first cells.

"evolution" , what's that??

a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?

c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

Quote

But arguing complex folding of RNA will open up a can of worms in some circles.

sheesh.  You have a few "Cans of Worms" festering a few posts back.

 

regards

[Guest shiloh357]

On 8/1/2017 at 8:23 AM, Zoltan777 said:

I would like know people opinion about creation. Many traditional believers stating it all happened in 6 days. Some other stating it took 6000 year referring to 2. Peter 3.8.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So what do you think, which theory is valid? And why? Or explain it if you have different thoughts.

It really depends on whether or not the Bible is our final authority.   The Bible says that God created the earth in 6 days.

Peter's comment was not a formula for how God tells time.  His point in that chapter was that Jesus' delay in returning was an act of mercy upon His enemies.

[Tristen]

On 15/08/2017 at 7:49 AM, one.opinion said:

This is all true, but these regulatory regions tend to be quite small in comparison with coding regions. It is also quite common for single regulatory regions to influence the expression of multiple genes. Bottom line - the argument of regulatory DNA being ~30X more prevalent than protein-coding (exon) DNA is still far-fetched. There are a large number of researchers that view catalytic RNA (ribozymes) as evidence of the RNA world. Personally, I view abiogenesis as much less likely than evolution from the first cells. But arguing complex folding of RNA will open up a can of worms in some circles.

I don't think we can say anything is "far-fetched" until we've had a chance to study it (for which we are unfortunately in the early stages, having presumed most of it to be junk for so long). But non-coding DNA can have a range of functions beyond protein coding and regulation - including structural functions like centromeres in cell reproduction. So I have no reason to assume any of it is evolutionary leftovers.

[one.opinion]

On 8/15/2017 at 6:01 AM, shiloh357 said:

It really depends on whether or not the Bible is our final authority.   The Bible says that God created the earth in 6 days.

Peter's comment was not a formula for how God tells time.  His point in that chapter was that Jesus' delay in returning was an act of mercy upon His enemies.

It really isn't quite that simple. People here make the exact same arguments for a flat earth. At some point, our interpretation of God's Word needs to be adjusted to what we learn in science. Personally, I accept the Bible as my final authority in what it is intended to address. I don't believe the age of the earth or duration of creation are among those things it directly addresses.