Jump to content


Photo

Same Genome, Different Proteome

expressions of phenotype

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#41 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 August 2012 - 08:09 AM

[/font][/color]

I will answer this question first. I would a say that there is some pretty strong evidence that they did share a common ancestor. However, I am not really convinced of it. There are aspects of humankind that are hard to explain with evolutionary theory - such as the will, morality, consciousness, etc. There is something special about humans that sets us apart from the animals and make us special in God's sight. So at this point I would say no, I am not convinced that humans shared a common ancestor with apes.

[/font][/color]

Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts here. When we observe DNA similarity across a wide range of organisms it is compatible with both common descent and with ID. We agree on that part.

The prediction part is where the confusion comes in. Lets say we have two organisms that we are unsure if they are related or not. Common descent would predict that in order for these organisms to be related by descent they must have similar DNA sequences. In fact, the sequences should be different such that it can be explained by a known process. As a simple example, consider the hypothetical organisms below (the letters represent genes)

A B C D E F G H I J K L - Organism 1
A B F E D C G H I J K L - Organism 2

We can see that these organisms differ by an inversion of the sequence C D E F, which is a known genetic phenomena and has been observed and studied in several model organisms.

If the sequences were more like this:

A B C D E F G H I J K L - organism 1
B D L J A C F H I K E G - organism 2

We could conclude that these organisms are not related because there is no mechanism that can explain these genetic changes. My primary area of study / interest is in plants, and this is exactly what is going on in plant systematics right now. With the data that is coming in from mDNA studies there is a major reshuffling as scientists are concluding that plants that were formerly thought to be related cannot actually be related and instead are related to other genera. I don't believe things are moving past the family level, but genera are certainly being reorganized.

So, that is how the predictive aspect of common descent works.

ID or more specifically special creation does not have that predictive aspect, IMO. What is to require the designer to build organisms in this type of predictable manner. For example, what would preclude the designer from building these organisms in the following way?

A B C D E F G H I J K L - house mouse
B D L J A C F H I K E G - white rat

Nothing would prevent the designer from organizing them in this way. So that means there is no ability to falsify any hypothesis about ancestry. Actually the human / chimp issue is a good example of this. Human chromosome 2 is thought to be a result of a fusion event between two chimp chromosomes. The correlation is stunning. Here is a bit about it http://www.evolution...hromosome_2.htm .

Common descent explains and predicts this (as I explained above). Fusion events are observed and studied. There is even a human living today that has undergone a similar fusion http://genetics.thet...al_news/news124

How does ID / special creation predict this situation. Lets forget for a second that we are talking about the human / chimp issue. What could you conclude about the following senario:

A B C D E F G H I J K - organism 1 (2 separate chromosomes)
A B C D E F G H I J K - organism 2 (1 fused chromosome)

You could easily conclude that organism 1 underwent a fusion event which gave rise to organism 2 (remember, fusions are observed - not just made up).

But now make it about the human / chimp issue and suddenly the rules change. Now an Intelligent designer could have designed it that way and it just looks like a fusion event. Do you see where I am coming from now? There is no predictive power in that. There is nothing to preclude a designer from designing in any fashion he chooses and there is no requirement that it be consistent.

I hope that clears up what I mean by predictability favors common descent rather than special creation in this case. And note that I am restricting this statement to the topic at hand only - I am not broadly painting this on every aspect of this debate.

That said, I am seriously puzzled by the evidence for human evolution, but I just am not convinced. I guess this is one area I do hold onto the in the Biblical account. It is hard to get around the fact that God made man in His image in order to have a relationship with Him. I have been unable to reconcile that idea with the idea of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor.

HBD


Let me restate this in a way that I believe makes more sense and sheds a different light on the situation. Common decent sets more specific constraints on what it predicts will happen in reality. Special creation allows for either completely different genomes for creatures that appear similar or very similar genomes, therefore not predicting much specifically in this realm.

The specific parameters of common decent makes it seem more scientifically testable, but this is the only advantage in theory. Creationists can easily take a stance one way or another when predicting data similarity within the genome, for example I predict that organisms that appear similar in structure require similar genes to produce such similarity. Predictability of common decent is an illusion because when chimpanzee and human genomes were compared and found to be radically different than predicted, the expectation was adjusted to accommodate common decent. Not only that, the imagined evolutionary split between chimpanzees and humans was pushed back millions of years, since it would have taken many more generations than previously thought to explain all the deletions, insertions, etc etc etc that we observed when comparing the genome. Rather than predicting anything, common decent accommodated anything, just as you stated for special creation. What I object to is special pleading for evolutionary thinking, assuming it is somehow a better presupposition to further scientific inquiry. Clearly it has no specific advantage.

Lets not confuse things though, I understand that some organisms share common ancestry. I share common ancestry with my brother, my mom and dad, my grandma etc. Plants share common ancestry with other plants, etc. I believe that if we took the time to develop a human genome and a chimpanzee genome without gaps, without using the human genome as a backbone for the chimpanzee genome, common ancestry assumptions would have to accommodate even more radical differences.

#42 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 04 August 2012 - 08:58 AM

Hi AFJ ...

The 98% is counting only substitutions, and not insertions and deletions. It depends on the study. This one says 95% if you count indels



Yea, the matter of similarity has certainly been conflated and those numbers continues to shrink as we learn more about the genomes of humans and chimps.

I do have to credit the honest question, so WHAT GENES MAKE US HUMAN? http://cogweb.ucla.e...Gibbons_98.html
If only 5 % of our DNA is different, then obviously the approximately 150,000,000 (5% of the human 3 billion) base pairs must be accountable for the upright gait, speech, ability to compose music, build, calculate math, practice medicine, run a business and government, as well as other large differences.



Note that the article you cited is 14 years old! The human genome was not fully sequenced until 2003. Since then an enormous amount of work has been done. I think it is difficult thing to grasp how enormous 3 billion base pairs is and what a monumental task it was to sequence it. And you are right, we still have not fully unraveled it. There is still uncertainty as to exactly how many genes are in the human genome.

"What genes makes us human?" is no longer an adequate question. The question is how does an organism use the genes it has to produce the structures that is has? One of the newest areas of research is in developmental biology (more specifically - evolutionary development). The need for this area of research has grown largely due to the point you make that there is just not enough difference in the genes alone to account for the significant differences in phenotypes. I think you will be seeing a significant shift (and indeed we already are) in evolutionary theory as new discoveries are made in this area. Now don't misunderstand me here, I am not convinced that humans and chimps share a common ancestor based on the current evidence, I am simply stating what the current scientific trends are and how that problem you mentioned has not gone unnoticed.

I will give you a simple example. Below is an image of the leaves of five different species of Quercus (oak).

Posted Image

Now to be honest, I am not sure what the genetic differences are between these species, but there is probably not much difference in the genes that are responsible for production of leaves. So if it uses the same cell types and the same proteins, what gives these leaves significantly different shapes (significant enough that we can classify them as separate species)? The answer is in how they develop, how genes are switch on and off, when and how much they are expressed. This is no simple matter to unravel.

Like why is it that, "Humans lack a particular form of a ubiquitous cell surface molecule found in all other apes...?" Easy, right? Selection just got rid of it, but all the other apes 'on the tree' still have it. And if it is ubiquitous in the apes, then it is a common and important molecule, so what happened to us, and why?



IMO, this argument is very weak from both sides. When a question like this is asked and is answered by "random mutation + natural selection"; I feel the answer would be better off left at "I don't know". Even if that were true, it really doesn't provide an answer. Also from the other side to say "if it is ubiquitous in apes, then why don't humans have it?" is equally pointless. I have always wondered why humans can't photosynthesize. Why leave photosynthesis strictly to plants? Can you imagine how much easier life would be if we could photosynthesize? Posted Image What is ubiquitous and required in one type of organism doesn't apply to other types of organisms. Without researching this particular case, I would guess that the coding for this molecule can be found within the human genome, but it has either been co-opted for use in another purpose or and been deregulated and subsequently modified to have a sequence that doesn't match closely. But that is merely a guess.

But only revelation can pull the naturalist into the reality of God's presence, theu inducing one to be convinced of the truth of his word. Obviously the miracle of life stands for itself, and no human can create it.



Agreed! If life were a simple matter of random molecular interactions we should be able to load a test tube with the required molecules and life should spontaneously begin. But there is something beyond simple molecular interaction that makes a blob of molecules alive. Heck, we can't even adequately define "alive."

This is natural revelation (Romans 1), but the revelation of the Holy Spirit convinces us that Christ is indeed Lord, and that by Him all things consist



The thing I would say about this is that natural revelation (or more accurately, general revelation) and revelation of the Holy Spirit (special revelation, ie. the Bible) need to agree. This is the part of this debate that I have had to struggle with. I believe that special revelation as interpreted in a YEC context is incompatible with general revelation. This is the cognitive dissonance that I need to resolve (and have for the most part). The part of Jesus Christ is Lord and that by Him all things consist is not an area of conflict for me. I accept that fully.

Thanks for the input

HBD

#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:32 AM

Hello again gilbo …



1. Have you not been reading my posts? I did way more than merely express my opinion. I gave my objections and explained why I had those objections.



2. No, I don’t deny that, but it is not simply a yes or no. When issues like this are put in a simple yes or no format it shows a basic misunderstanding of the overall context. You can’t just focus on one piece; you have to understand the context. I will reiterate some of my main points regarding this topic.

a) I gave you a valid example of a specific situation where the assumption of descent would be perfectly reasonable and justified, but you chose to ignore it. If you are using this logic to refer to alignments between worms and humans - then yes, it would be an illogical assumption. But that is not exactly how it is done, as I have already pointed out.

b ) DNA similarity is far from the only evidence that evolutionists use to establish common ancestry. Other lines of evidence allow certain assumptions when generating phylogenies. They don’t simple say 98% similar must have evolved. It is not that simple. DNA similarity is merely one line of evidence that suggests common ancestry.

c) DNA similarity compares homologous genes. IOW, saying chimps and humans are 95% similar means we share 95% similarity in our genes - not in non-coding regions, which is why gaps are allowed in the alignment. Yes, if you lined up chimp DNA directly next to human DNA the similarity % would greatly diminish. And yes, you are absolutely right in saying that DNA sequences in those gaps are very important to the development of the organism. But that doesn’t change what “DNA similarity” means.

d) Similarity in genes between organisms helps us explore and determine how these genes and the non-coding regions function. Check out how mice are being used to understand the human genome. That research is due to the similarity between the mouse genome and our own genome.

e) I would agree that DNA similarity could indicate ID. But does ID predict DNA similarity? Do we assume that an Intelligent Designer would use modular components in the construction of organisms? Human designers do use modular components (which are really only an innovation of the last 100 years or so) to reduce costs, make assembly cheaper, reduce inventory, etc… This is hardly advantageous to an Intelligent Agent that can speak things into existence. So ID does not require or predict DNA similarity. Common ancestry both predicts DNA similarity and is consistent with the observation of similarity. I don’t doubt the existence of an Intelligent Designer (more specifically the God of the Bible) but DNA similarity is ambiguous as to His role and actually favors common descent.



No, I do not deny any such thing. It would definitely give more information as to what is going on with cellular processes. If fact, this is what they are doing when they are studying processes such as the lac operon in bacteria. But to use it to compare similarity between organisms … I don’t feel it would be useful, at least not in the context you are referring to.



3. Again, do you even read what I post? I said much more than it is too hard.

a) Proteins that are translated from mRNA can be modified after translation. You would need to know every possible modification.

b ) mRNA molecules are very unstable and subject to degradation. This, in fact, is one method the cell uses to control gene products - faster degradation = less product. So you would also need to know how much gene product can be produced from the mRNA.

c) Every cell type would have differing levels of mRNA expression. Do you know how many different cell types there are in the human body?

d) Cells can have different expression levels in different environments. Again, consider the bacterial lac operon; the expression of mRNA is different depending on whether lactose is present or not and if glucose is present, then the presence of lactose is irrelevant. So, which state would you use for comparison purposes? Glu+ / Lac+; Glu+ / Lac-; Glu- / Lac+; or Glu- / Lac- ? You get back to “potential” gene products.

e) Many organisms have different mRNA expressions during their lifetimes, as in the example of a butterfly you used. Do you realize that you could compare an adult human to a human infant and find different levels of mRNA expression? Do you know that human females and human males have different levels of mRNA expression? What would you compare what to what and why? You come right back to “potential” expression.

Scientists are exploring the issue of mRNA expression every day. It definitely is a key to understanding biological processes and development. But to think that generating an enormous database and comparing mRNA expression levels will show that organisms did not evolve is merely a pipe dream.

So, you may not agree with me, but you can’t say I only offered my opinion or merely stated “its too hard”. I put a lot of time and effort into my posts and I don’t just shoot off the cuff. And for you to say that I am merely offering my opinion and stating “its too hard” is a gross misrepresentation of my responses.

HBD


1. Post 33 was entirely your opinion.... My post 34 was in reply to it.......

2. No you cannot justify the assumption of the thing you are attempting to support. That IS by definition circular reasoning and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that fact.


"Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular."
http://carm.org/logi...s-argumentation
Emphasis mine.



I do not care about what you call "context" since as it has already been shown all these other supporting arguments are also as subjective as the initial one where you had to assume evolution in the first place. Such is not proper context since they are all arbitrary.


a) Where has this been stated? Valid under what guise? As I said before you cannot assume the thing you are trying to prove and still consider such logical. As it has been shown such is a logical fallacy.... So it would be commonplace for science to be upheld on logical fallacies?

B) Yet all these other lines are just as subjective and are not verified via the scientific method.... However the exact same method is used to infer a designer hence if you claim this method "science" in the name of evolution why is it not science in the name of creation? (Seems a bit like special pleading to me... another logical fallacy).


- Fossils DO NOT give any form of empirical evidence of evolution. Yes we can observe similarities however such doesn't explain nor demonstrates HOW they came to be similar. There is observation and then there is merely an "evolution did it" claim. Such is not evidence it is merely a statement of faith. By what empirical test can be undertaken on the fossils to demonstrate that their similarities "evolved"?

- Variations in life, (small changes) have never been observed to cause large changes... to claim so is yet another logical fallacy... the slippery slope fallacy.
  • In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in US English - or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.
  • http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope
  • c) Then you've just admitted that "DNA similarity" itself is an erronous name.. Since only the coding areas are looked at and the non-coding areas, (which you admitted are important, and which are where most of the differences occur) are not used in the analysis. Hence you've admitted that cherry picking has been undergone, this is yet another reason why the DNA evidence cannot be used.
  • d) Yes I know that, and if you had bothered to read what I had said then you would see that I had already said that the techniques can be used to find DNA with similarity, however what it cannot be used for is to determine the degree of similarity one organism has to another. Since looking at similar functions in cells do not require any reading on the degree of similarity then this is fine... Your use of this as "evidence" underlines that you don't understand what I am trying to get at here. Perhaps read my original contention, then come back.
e) This question has been asked and yes ID does indeed predict similarity within organisms... Consider how the ecological systems and foodchains work, if all organisms were designed with totally different features, say a Si based organism etc... then there can be no feeding between these different types. Having the modular components means they can be digested and re-used by the organism. If I was a designer compatability of digestion of basic components would be pretty high on my list..hmm..... So it seems you didn't consider your question for very long since you automatically asserted victory....

Even so, how can you logically ask me to explain God and his reasons for doing things? All you explained here was your own unwillingness to even consider the possibility of design.




3. I summarised

a) it would be a step closer than just looking at the DNA potential hence your point here is in favour of using mRNA since what you claim is even less informative...... (Obviously you didn't think about this point much too, since I thought it would be clear)

B) You would only need to know if you used that method...... Considering that mRNA analysises are already being done, (just not in phylogenetic trees) then it seems that this point is already dealt with.

c) Yes I already wrote on this, (if you read what I said), however this means that more information can be gleaned ie we can compare the mRNA from human brain cells to mRNA from chimp brain cells as well as mRNA from human liver cells to the mRNA from chimp liver cells. Just claiming about the amount of human specialsed cells is very silly since over time they will get sequenced... We do not need every cell type initially.

d) This allows for yet another level of information.. since the mRNA analysis can be done under both conditions and then compared with other cells done under both conditions... Thus allowing for more information on expression.

e) Yet again this is another level of information, we can get mRNA from adult humans etc and also from infant humans etc and then compare them.... Yet more information of expression....


All your objections have gone on to demonstrate how powerful mRNA analysis can be, it allows many different levels of sourcing data. All of which are relatively hasslefree. Therefore none of your objections stand.

























#44 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:13 AM

gilbo,

- Fossils DO NOT give any form of empirical evidence of evolution. Yes we can observe similarities however such doesn't explain nor demonstrates HOW they came to be similar. There is observation and then there is merely an "evolution did it" claim. Such is not evidence it is merely a statement of faith. By what empirical test can be undertaken on the fossils to demonstrate that their similarities "evolved"?



I thought we were talking about using DNA vs mRNA to compare similarity between organisms. How do fossils come into this discussion?

This question has been asked and yes ID does indeed predict similarity within organisms... Consider how the ecological systems and foodchains work, if all organisms were designed with totally different features, say a Si based organism etc... then there can be no feeding between these different types. Having the modular components means they can be digested and re-used by the organism. If I was a designer compatability of digestion of basic components would be pretty high on my list..hmm.....



I made no suggestion that the designer should make organisms out of Si or any alternate material. But merely commented that the arrangement of components need not be conserved. Of course the designer could reuse sequence patterns but is not constrained to do so.

Even so, how can you logically ask me to explain God and his reasons for doing things?



I don't think I asked you to logically explain God, however, it seems as if you think you can. You say ID predicts ... is this not an attempt to logically explain God's methodology? I do believe that God is a God of order, but that still does not constrain him to use conserved sequences ... therefore it does not predict that conserved sequences would be used.

All you explained here was your own unwillingness to even consider the possibility of design.



Not true at all!!! I have repeatedly confessed that God is the creator through Jesus Christ and that by Him all things were made. How is that unwillingness to consider design? What I do not accept is your premise presented in the OP that mRNA would give us a better indication of similarity between organisms and that it would lead us to better conclusions about relationships.

Yes I already wrote on this, (if you read what I said), however this means that more information can be gleaned ie we can compare the mRNA from human brain cells to mRNA from chimp brain cells as well as mRNA from human liver cells to the mRNA from chimp liver cells. Just claiming about the amount of human specialsed cells is very silly since over time they will get sequenced... We do not need every cell type initially.



Nowhere had you mentioned the specificity of your comparisons. I am supposed to think about this and figure out what you actually meant? Your premise was that mRNA comparisons would improve our ability to classify organisms and would be more reliable than DNA sequences. But now we start with a couple tissues and draw conclusions from that? You won't really be able to make comparison of organism similarity until you have at least most of the data in, so my point regarding that amount of cell types is relevant.

Studies like this are being done even as we speak. How has it improved your ability to draw conclusions about relatedness? You asked if any such studies are now being done, and the answer is yes! One such example is with the mouse. The mouse is being used as a model organism in treating human disease. In researching diseases, scientists are exploring the very things you advocate, albeit in much more sophisticated ways. Expression, development, and specialization are crucial to understanding how to treat diseases. Do some research on it. It is remarkable what they are discovering.

So it seems you didn't consider your question for very long since you automatically asserted victory....



"Asserted victory?" I did no such thing! I didn't even realize this was a matter of "win" and "lose." I thought this was a discussion about the topic at hand meant to help both parties better understand each other's position and perhaps clear up misunderstandings that one or both parties has on an issue. I have made my position clear and you have failed to convince me otherwise, as I have failed to convince you otherwise. There is really nothing more to say regarding this topic, so I will just let it go and move on.

HBD

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:16 PM

gilbo,

[/font][/color]

1. I thought we were talking about using DNA vs mRNA to compare similarity between organisms. How do fossils come into this discussion?



2. I made no suggestion that the designer should make organisms out of Si or any alternate material. But merely commented that the arrangement of components need not be conserved. Of course the designer could reuse sequence patterns but is not constrained to do so.

[/font][/color]

3. I don't think I asked you to logically explain God, however, it seems as if you think you can. You say ID predicts ... is this not an attempt to logically explain God's methodology? I do believe that God is a God of order, but that still does not constrain him to use conserved sequences ... therefore it does not predict that conserved sequences would be used.



4. Not true at all!!! I have repeatedly confessed that God is the creator through Jesus Christ and that by Him all things were made. How is that unwillingness to consider design? What I do not accept is your premise presented in the OP that mRNA would give us a better indication of similarity between organisms and that it would lead us to better conclusions about relationships.

[/font][/color]

5. Nowhere had you mentioned the specificity of your comparisons. I am supposed to think about this and figure out what you actually meant? Your premise was that mRNA comparisons would improve our ability to classify organisms and would be more reliable than DNA sequences. But now we start with a couple tissues and draw conclusions from that? You won't really be able to make comparison of organism similarity until you have at least most of the data in, so my point regarding that amount of cell types is relevant.

6. Studies like this are being done even as we speak. How has it improved your ability to draw conclusions about relatedness? You asked if any such studies are now being done, and the answer is yes! One such example is with the mouse. The mouse is being used as a model organism in treating human disease. In researching diseases, scientists are exploring the very things you advocate, albeit in much more sophisticated ways. Expression, development, and specialization are crucial to understanding how to treat diseases. Do some research on it. It is remarkable what they are discovering.



7. "Asserted victory?" I did no such thing! I didn't even realize this was a matter of "win" and "lose." I thought this was a discussion about the topic at hand meant to help both parties better understand each other's position and perhaps clear up misunderstandings that one or both parties has on an issue. I have made my position clear and you have failed to convince me otherwise, as I have failed to convince you otherwise. There is really nothing more to say regarding this topic, so I will just let it go and move on.

HBD


Firstly, do you concede that the current method of DNA alignment renders its use as evidence for common ancestry as an example of circular reasoning. You totally skipped over this point? Or was this omission a sign of begrudging acceptance?


1. You were talking about the justification of using DNA since it just fits in with other evidence. I mentioned that such evidence is also as subjective as the DNA "evidence" and therefore doesn't give a logical basis for your claims.

"b ) DNA similarity is far from the only evidence that evolutionists use to establish common ancestry. Other lines of evidence allow certain assumptions when generating phylogenies. They don’t simple say 98% similar must have evolved. It is not that simple. DNA similarity is merely one line of evidence that suggests common ancestry."- you post #42

I suggest you read your own words more carefully. I merely had a preemptive attack against what these "other lines of evidence" are...


2. Si was merely an example, you claimed similarity of components not of structure or form... Considering that the modular components you speak of are infact the amino acids / nucleic acids themselves then your point doesn't follow since there are many different structures from these components, and as I said such things have been designed to be digested. To claim otherwise would ask for a reshuffling of the amino / nucleic acids themselves which would constitute a change in their operation, which means they no-longer can be used (therefore a bad design).

3. Any time someone asks, "why would God do X?" that is exactly what they are asking.

4. Really.... Considering that my last post defeated / rendered all your arguments against mRNA moot it seems that you deny it out of your own beliefs not on logic. You only attempted at salvaging one of your points but you did so by asking that all the data be presented straight away.....

5. Shakes head.... You are asking for every single piece of data to be presented in the snap of a finger... You do realise how silly that is? You do realise that if such complaints were considered in any field of science then nothing would ever get done, since in the begining of research not all the data is known... that is the point of the research........ (Yes it is that obvious)

6. As I said, (please READ my posts), mRNA studies are being done however they are not being put into phylogenetic trees.... I already know about how mice are being used, yet there is no link between this and you're not wanting to compare mRNA.

7. You automatically asserted that there was no design, read what I was replying to and the context of my reply... Rather than cutting bits out.



Do you concede that studying the ACTUAL expression of genes would be more useful than mere potential. This is my fundamental point and is one that you avoid.
Do you concede that what you claimed earlier demonstrates that the DNA evidence is based on cherry picking- (no non-transcriptional areas are used despite their known importance)
Do you concede that you have mentioned no actual objections against using mRNA, (consider my responses in this post and the other)

#46 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

.... What I have stated here demonstrates that the method used to determine the similarity in DNA is not reliable and is biased to finding similarities even when they may not be there.[/b] I leave you with this old saying "what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular" Consider this when you claim that scientists allow it, since it is an attempt at argumentum ad populum which is a logical fallacy. I have made many phylogenetic trees, (we have had many many topics based on evolution in my degree.... hence why I believe its akin to indoctrination). Actually it was playing around with the data and trees that I realised point two above.


Did various traits or genetic sequences lead to different phylogenetic trees being draw up?

#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:50 PM

Did various traits or genetic sequences lead to different phylogenetic trees being draw up?

That doesn't relate to what you quoted :) I was talking about how the DNA alignment procedures used are inherently biased to creating a "match up" when there may not be one.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users