6 days Creation

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

 

If you really want me to, I can dig out a January 1997 reference for you. The point is that although NGS certainly makes transcriptome analysis easier, this research really goes back 20 years. Human transcriptome analysis has advanced quickly with NGS capabilities. Fire and Mello received a Nobel Prize in 2006 for their discovery of RNA interference and some of their earliest well-publicized work goes back 10 years more. Tristen, there really is non-functional DNA in the human genome, and it is not a minuscule fraction.

Let's put a hypothetical out there. Let's say you are having some severe abdominal pain for several days and your family physician says you need to go to the ER. Imagine if 100 doctors do a thorough examination and get second and third opinions from other doctors. Ninety-nine doctors agree that you need to have your appendix removed. One doctor says "It looks like your appendix, but it is contrary to my world view, so I'm going to say it is your gallbladder, instead". Now, before you say anything, there's a major hole in my analogy because I haven't brought the authority of God's Word into this scenario, but according to your argument, this isn't needed. So... what part of your body would you like to have surgery upon?

Hey One,

“The point is that although NGS certainly makes transcriptome analysis easier, this research really goes back 20 years”

It more than makes it easier, it provides confidence that the entire transcriptome can be characterised (assuming the integrity of the extracted sample). The tens-of-thousands of very short RNA reads possible by Sanger-based technologies (like SAGE) cannot provide that. Whereas the hundreds-of-millions to potentially billions of reads provided by next-gen sequencing can provide that confidence – and usually with 100 or more times coverage over each region

But this is largely irrelevant for several reasons; 1) Transcriptomes are context specific (i.e. cell type, maturity, condition, environment etc.). So knowing the transcriptome of a cell type in any specific context can’t be extrapolated to knowing the function (or lack of) of any gene beyond that specific context. 2) Transcriptome studies are primarily concerned with differential expression against some control – so only the differentially expressed genes tend to be characterised and reported (i.e. not every transcript sequenced).

 

“Tristen, there really is non-functional DNA in the human genome, and it is not a minuscule fraction”

How do you know what is “non-functional”? We are continually finding new functional genes. So to make the assumption you are making, you have to apply the flawed logic that if you don’t know what something does, it must be “non-functional”. Science is supposed to use more measured language – i.e. ‘There is currently much of the human genome for which we currently have no described function’. But this, more accurate, description is a much weaker argument for Common Ancestry than “there really is non-functional DNA in the human genome, and it is not a minuscule fraction”.

 

“Ninety-nine doctors agree that you need to have your appendix removed. One doctor says "It looks like your appendix, but it is contrary to my world view, so I'm going to say it is your gallbladder, instead". …  So... what part of your body would you like to have surgery upon?”

The numbers (and therefore consensus) are entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is argument. The argument provided by the one dissenting doctor starts “It looks like your appendix” – which is consistent with the other doctors. I assume that the other doctors could provide arguments as to why they agree that it “looks like” an appendix issue, rather than a gallbladder issue (i.e. from anatomy, symptoms etc.).

The “I don’t accept it because it is contrary to my world view” is a poor argument. It would be ironic if you think this a typical reflection of the creationist position. Sure, we prefer interpretations of facts that agree with the clear meaning of scripture, but those who accept the secular paradigms use exactly the same logic. That doesn’t mean we can’t objectively consider arguments. Since other interpretations of the same facts exist, there is no objective reason to consider one paradigm more valid than the other. And since the claims of both sides are scientifically unfalsifiable, neither side can be rationally obligated to set aside their position. So to presume such a narrow motive exists in only in opponents of your position would itself be narrow-minded.

[one.opinion]

Hey Tristen,

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

But this is largely irrelevant for several reasons; 1) Transcriptomes are context specific (i.e. cell type, maturity, condition, environment etc.). So knowing the transcriptome of a cell type in any specific context can’t be extrapolated to knowing the function (or lack of) of any gene beyond that specific context. 2) Transcriptome studies are primarily concerned with differential expression against some control – so only the differentially expressed genes tend to be characterised and reported (i.e. not every transcript sequenced).

This discussion really isn't about the transcriptome at all, but developed from my assertion that a sizable portion of the genome is non-functional - or put another way, there really is such a thing as "junk DNA". All of this stemming from the argument that remarkable sequence similarity in regions considered "junk DNA" is highly suggestive of common ancestry.

I don't know if you will place any value in these, but I have a couple of scientific articles that discuss some of this.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/3952726/An-upper-limit-on-the-functional-fraction-of-the?searchresult=1

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

Next, I have a couple more things that you might be interested in reading regarding the "appeal to consensus fallacy" and why it doesn't always apply to all scenarios.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-to-scientific-consensus-is-not-an-appeal-to-popularity-or-authority/

Looking forward to reading your analysis.

 

[Enoch2021]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Looking forward to reading your analysis.

My Pleasure...

 

Quote

my assertion that a sizable portion of the genome is non-functional - or put another way, there really is such a thing as "junk DNA".

I already PUMMELED this Erroneous and Baseless Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy a few posts back, Multiple Times!

"The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.” 

Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

 

"People arrogantly called parts of the human genome that don't code for protein 'junk DNA'...today Junk DNA is where all the discoveries are happening and we know that Junk DNA is CRUCIAL for gene regulation."

Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)

https://www.evolutionnews.org/ 2013/10/craig_venter_in/

 

 

So:

 

one.opinion -- my assertion that a sizable portion of the genome is non-functional.

Craig Venter PhD Genetics -- Junk DNA is CRUCIAL for gene regulation.

I wonder who we should take seriously?

 

Quote

All of this stemming from the argument that remarkable sequence similarity in regions considered "junk DNA" is highly suggestive of common ancestry.

Again, Spilled Milk.  

Your Common Ancestry Fairytale Tree got Husqvarna Chain Sawed and is laying a few posts back as Kindling.

 

Quote

 

 I don't know if you will place any value in these, but I have a couple of scientific articles that discuss some of this.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/3952726/An-upper-limit-on-the-functional-fraction-of-the?searchresult=1

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

 

 

1.  Scientific??   My Wife's Crocheting Books have more "Science" in them, for goodness sakes.

Show the "SCIENTIFIC" part in either of these rags...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Ya see this ^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE"!!!

 

2.  Elephant Hurling Fallacy --a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the argument.

 

Quote

 

Next, I have a couple more things that you might be interested in reading regarding the "appeal to consensus fallacy" and why it doesn't always apply to all scenarios.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

 

From Rational wiki??      

From your source...

What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences:

1. Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.
2. Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.)

 

1.  If Scientific Consensus doesn't claim to be True, THEN...WHY are you Appealing to them to begin with!!! 

 

2.  Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method

Well then, when you Appeal to Your Consensus Fallacy, to Invalidate IT as a Fallacy, YOU MUST...

a. Validate that all the members of the 'Consensus' are ACTUAL "Scientists".

b. Show the Syllogisms (Logic) that each have used to SUPPORT their Conclusions.

c. Show how the Claim is SUPPORTED by  ...........  The Scientific Method.

This...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Ya see this ^^^^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE" (The Scientific Method) !!!

 

If you don't VALIDATE the Criterion above in each instance, well... IT REMAINS A FALLACY.  K? 

 

Quote

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-to-scientific-consensus-is-not-an-appeal-to-popularity-or-authority/

This essentially "B' gAAK" PARROTS your "rational wiki" link. <--- If that's not a Contradiction in Terms, What Is??

 

ps.  Both of these links are Elephant Hurling Fallacies.  At least your Consistent  

 

regards

[Tristen]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Hey Tristen,

This discussion really isn't about the transcriptome at all, but developed from my assertion that a sizable portion of the genome is non-functional - or put another way, there really is such a thing as "junk DNA". All of this stemming from the argument that remarkable sequence similarity in regions considered "junk DNA" is highly suggestive of common ancestry.

I don't know if you will place any value in these, but I have a couple of scientific articles that discuss some of this.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/3952726/An-upper-limit-on-the-functional-fraction-of-the?searchresult=1

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

Next, I have a couple more things that you might be interested in reading regarding the "appeal to consensus fallacy" and why it doesn't always apply to all scenarios.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-to-scientific-consensus-is-not-an-appeal-to-popularity-or-authority/

Looking forward to reading your analysis.

Hi One,

“This discussion really isn't about the transcriptome at all, but developed from my assertion that a sizable portion of the genome is non-functional - or put another way, there really is such a thing as "junk DNA". All of this stemming from the argument that remarkable sequence similarity in regions considered "junk DNA" is highly suggestive of common ancestry”

This argument is entirely dependent upon the assumption that what you call “junk DNA” has no biological purpose or function. That assumption is based on the flawed logic that not knowing a function equates to there being no function (Essentially, an Appeal to Ignorance).

No doubt you are somewhat familiar with the ENCODE project – in which 450-odd scientists studied the human genome in only 147 cell types using a variety of methods – concluding that a little over 80% of the human genome was biologically active. Admittedly, they only notated a small fraction of that activity. But given that information, it is no longer reasonable to simply assume no function in those regions. Because, if the DNA in these regions is functional (in any capacity), then it is no more “suggestive of common ancestry”, than it is of design.

 

“I don't know if you will place any value in these, but I have a couple of scientific articles that discuss some of this”

I am happy to consider scientific articles because I consider them an attempt to provide evidence of your position.

 

--- Regarding: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

I’m dealing with the second link first because it exemplifies issues common to both papers.

Graur mandates that the interpretations of genomic facts are only valid when assuming a long, evolutionary history. The calculations in this paper rely on the assumption that millions of years of deleterious mutations must be evident in the genome. Note in this earlier paper by the same author, (http://helix.biology.mcmaster.ca/Graur_GBE_2013.pdf ), that the ENCODE project is criticised for “divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context” and further claims that “most biologists use the  selected  effect  concept  of  function, following the Dobzhanskyan dictum according to which biological  sense can  only be  derived  from  evolutionary  context”. This is tantamount to an admission that biologists don’t just “follow the evidence”, as often claimed, but apply their evolutionary world-view to the interpretation process.

The second main issue both papers seem to have is with the use of the term “function”. Both papers criticise ENCODE’s broad usage of the term, preferring a narrower, less general connotation. You can read the specific criticisms in the articles, but in terms of the creation/Common Ancestry debate, I think, from a point of logic, that the broader definition is more relevant. If a section of DNA can be said to be contributing to the overall survival of humanity (individually or collectively), then it can be rationally interpreted to fit a ‘designed for purpose’ model. Note that ENCODE didn’t even look into structural functions of DNA.

 

--- Regarding: https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/3952726/An-upper-limit-on-the-functional-fraction-of-the?searchresult=1

So firstly, this is not a research paper, but a philosophical thesis. It does not claim to have performed any experiments showing that “there really is such a thing as "junk DNA"”. It is essentially arguing that the new information (i.e. from ENCODE) doesn’t necessarily obligate a wholesale rejection of the junk DNA concept.

It is also noteworthy to examine the language used by the authors. In an article entitled “The Case for Junk DNA”, nowhere do the authors make a truth-claim resembling “there really is such a thing as "junk DNA"”. They would not pass review making such claims since that level of confidence is not supported by the facts. They rather used appropriately-hedged language such as, “the declaration that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift with regards to eukaryotic genomes and gene expression seems premature” and that “Nothing in the recent research or commentary on the subject has challenged” the previous paradigm of junk DNA advocates.

 

“Next, I have a couple more things that you might be interested in reading regarding the "appeal to consensus fallacy" and why it doesn't always apply to all scenarios”

I am less inclined to be pointed off-site to consider the arguments of others I’m not engaging with. I want to encourage you to think through the logic of an issue for yourself, rather than rely on what others have said. I consider it your job to make the case for your position, not my job to go investigate what you claim. If you think these resources make a good point, then present the argument here and I’ll be happy to consider it.

That said, I briefly looked at the sites. Neither had anything of note challenging anything I’ve said previously. Both seemed to point to some Pollyanna ideal of scientists being more trustworthy because they came to their conclusions scientifically. Not only does such an approach contradict the critical thinking encouraged by scientific logic, it represents a classic Appeal to Authority/Expertise. Fallacies are matters of departure from logic. Appeals to Consensus are fallacious because, even if we all agree that something is true, it may not be so. Appeals to Expertise are fallacious because experts can be wrong, or biased, or lying, or uninformed, or misspeak etc. Arguments based on fallacy are technically irrational. They provide an opponent with nothing of rational substance to consider or respond to – which is probably why fallacies are so popular in political discourse.

Cheers.

[Kevinb]

On 12/08/2017 at 8:15 AM, Tristen said:

Kevin,

“You are still asserting it though”

What I am asserting is that there is more than one logical way to interpret functional traits

Hey Tristan...hope you're well. Apologies on not replying.. been away. 

I think we had left evolution and moved on to big bang stuff? 

You seem to be aware of some of the science and evidence but I'm not seeing how you then add God did anything and how you demonstrate that? 

In 1916 Einstein predicted gravitational waves in a big bang and inflation. You'll be aware of these waves being discovered a few years ago? Or the cosmic background radiation discovered in the 60s?  Physics predicted this stuff and more prior. The science of this and evolution makes predictions and is falsifiable... as per scientific method. How do you get to interpreting it a different way to mean and add God?  Please demonstrate? Or please demonstrate any God involvement here? 

[Kevinb]

On 17/08/2017 at 2:54 AM, one.opinion said:

Appealing to Consensus is always a fallacy because it represents a departure from logic

Not the case if it's supported by evidence. 

An arguement from authority would be...ie one source.. not supported by evidence..ie the bible asserting the 6 day stuff

The consensus demonstrates gravity theory...germ theory of disease...atom theory of matter.. earth goes round the sun. You're happy with all of it it seems right up to your bible things that would be in conflict

Edited September 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[one.opinion]

Just for the record, those are Tristen's words and not mine. I am firmly of the opinion that consensus opinion among experts in a field is meaningful. I contend that it is not a logical fallacy use expert consensus opinion as reasonable support. The alternative would be to accept the validity of 1 person's opinion out of a billion with a different opinion, because siding with the billion would "only be appeal to consensus".

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

Not the case if it's supported by evidence. 

An arguement from authority would be...ie one source.. not supported by evidence..ie the bible asserting the 6 day stuff

The consensus demonstrates gravity theory...germ theory of disease...atom theory of matter.. earth goes round the sun. You're happy with all of it it seems right up to your bible things that would be in conflict

Science isn't a democracy and something isn't true based on consensus.  What if Galileo or Copernicus had given into consensus?

Truth exists independent of consensus.  If something is true, it is true no matter who believes it or how many believe it.

[Kevinb]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Science isn't a democracy and something isn't true based on consensus.  What if Galileo or Copernicus had given into consensus?

Truth exists independent of consensus.  If something is true, it is true no matter who believes it or how many believe it.

Agreed...ish.  You missed out the crucial part where I said it must be supported by evidence. One person in fact could change the course if new evidence is unearthed..it would be checked by others to ensure validity then if so would be our new best model based on it for example...ie peer reviewed. 

As galileo did... as you mentioned... has to be checked by others.. so can we repeat the data.. once we can that can become a consensus view.Else we would fall pray to anything any munchkin proposed.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Guest shiloh357]

18 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Agreed...ish.  You missed out the crucial part where I said it must be supported by evidence.

Evidence is open to interpretation, though.  There is no such thing as "evidence for Evolution."  Evolutionists and Creationists have the same set of data.

Quote

One person in fact could change the course if new evidence is unearthed..it would be checked by others to ensure validity then if so would be our new best model based on it for example...ie peer reviewed. 

What does happen is that if data emerges that supports something other than the Evolution model, it is suppressed.  No one who interprets data according to a Creationist model gets published, regardless of their expertise, years in the field and no matter how many advanced degrees they hold.

 

Quote

As galileo did... as you mentioned... has to be checked by others.. so can we repeat the data.. once we can that can become a consensus view.Else we would fall pray to anything any munchkin proposed.

The problem is that Evolution is assumed and the data is interpreted through that filter.   It's not an agenda-free, purely objective rational process.

Consensus is also drive by politics.