Because I’m scientifically literate. Why don’t you accept scientifically verified reality?
How did you become scientifically literate? Is science your only means of accumulating knowledge?
1 Like
There are all sorts of measures you could use. The point is that the creationists are using a standard that says one thing and interpreting it as a different thing. Did you look at the video? Did you pay attention to what was said?
1 Like
Why is that relevant? Whether or not someone considers science the only route to knowledge, that wouldn’t negate what God has revealed to us in his creation. Evidence matters. Truth matters.
Don’t you believe that God’s revelations in the world he created are reliable? Science is just the investigation and description of that creation. Why wouldn’t it be trustworthy to read the history God recorded in his creation?
1 Like
The discussion is about cognitive filters such as world-views. If someone sees science as the only vehicle for knowledge then they will look at the data differently then someone who believes the Bible (or other documented evidence) is a valid source of knowledge.
1 Like
Undergraduate and graduate level courses, reading the scientific literature, hands on experience over a forty year career. The real question is why haven’t you become scientifically literate after all this time of people explaining evolutionary biology to you?
2 Likes
How is Jeanson describing something different than you are claiming? Do you agree that he describes exactly why he considers the genomes less than 90% similar? It seems you are simply making a different measurement based on reducing single base pair differences that you believe are the result of multiple base pair insertions or deletions.
If a software program had a module that added significantly to the programs function and made the code 50% different then the original program how different would you describe the two programs?
Do you think scientific literacy is believing every popular scientific argument is true?
Science is a tool for investigating and understanding the natural world. Religion is a tool for shaping human social behavior. If you use the wrong tool for the job you’re going to get the wrong results.
2 Likes
I don’t. Scientific literacy is having the knowledge and understanding to judge ideas and accept ones well supported by the evidence. Why do you think scientific findings must always be wrong if they disagree with your religious beliefs?
1 Like
Jeanson isn’t interested in scientific accuracy. Jeanson is only looking for a way to cast doubt on well supported scientific conclusions that contradict his religious beliefs. To that end he’ll cherry pick data and throw any mud at the wall he can find to see what he can get to stick.
2 Likes
No.
That paper is by a creationist hack, not an evolutionist. I’m surprised you did not know that.
And it has been destroyed by one of our members, @Art on this very forum:
Really stupid even by your standards.
These two sequences of letters are 75% similar:
CTAG
CTAT
It doesn’t matter whether or not one accepts common ancestry. The similarity remains 75%.
1 Like
Others have already commented on this. There’s no point in repeating what they have written.
As for “purely naturalistic” – I’m never sure what that’s supposed to mean. The term “naturalistic” already has an unnatural ring to it, in my view. And what does the “purely” add to that? It’s not up to me to say whether there might be a god behind all of nature.
I don’t. I think scientific findings are generally well supported. I think evolutionary theory as described by @swamidass based in his discussion with Behe is accurate.
I do think however evolutionary theory is exaggerated by some to the general public. Some of the limitations described with evolutionary theory in the video are accurate.
Why do you think that when you exhibit zero understanding of actual evolutionary theory at all?
Virtually nothing in that Creationist propaganda video is anywhere close to scientifically accurate.
1 Like
That paper doesn’t say how many mutations it takes to “evolve the same function”(twice?).
Rather, that paper is usually being bandied about to show that the frequency of amino acid sequences 150 residues (or more) in length capable of adopting functional enzyme folds, is as low as 1 in 10^77. Not really the same thing.
And in any case, the ludicrous conclusions typically drawn from that paper by ID-creationists (extending the work to apply to basically all proteins of a similar size) have been comprehensively debunked numerous times.
Interestingly, Discovery Institute fellow Ann Gauger has even somewhat walked back the specific claim one is bound to hear from cdesign proponentsists concerning that paper, on this very forum. She wrote:
Ann Gauger: Doug’s paper showed the rarity of a functional protein with a particular activity (B-lactam) and a particular structure ( TEM-1 B-lactam) (that’s what he and I mean by a functional fold BTW). Out all possible protein structures only 1 in 10^77 will have that structure and that enzymatic activity. It’s a way of answering the question, how many ways are there to make a protein that has that particular structure with that particular chemistry out of all possible proteins.
You will notice(well, if you can think) that this tells us nothing about how difficult it is to evolve the function. Nor even the fold, as there could be many selectable paths from shorter peptides with the same, or different functions, to this one. The sequences that adopt this fold and perform this function could also overlap sequences performing other functions in sequence space, and hence some particular rare fold+function combination might be reached easily by selection from another function that itself is much easier to evolve. Simply put, none of these possibilities have been ruled out, and hence none of the conclusions you will hear in the IDcreationist literature based on Axe’s 2004 paper can be supported. His experiment is simply incapable of supporting ANY of those conclusions. Creationists simply assume this as some sort of axiom.
And this is all without even going into @Art’s excellent 2007 article that explains why Axe’s experiment is incapable of supporting the number he extrapolates from his limited data.
2 Likes
We’re probably not to say such things on this forum, but based on @Art’s more recent “Invitaton to Dialogue” article (an invitation which Axe and all other IDC’s have yet to accept) I think it is reasonable to suspect that Axe deliberately fudged his methodology to produce the results he wanted.
3 Likes
Bill, can we start off by agreeing that this is a subject you know nothing about and are not competent to judge?
Jeanson describes the basis of his measure, but he doesn’t describe his reason, which is to inflate the difference between species and enable him later to talk about “hundreds of millions of mutations”. Now of course it isn’t hundreds of millions at all. If the differences are indeed mutations then it’s only about 40 million. So yeah, his distance measure is a problem. It’s a bait & switch. Now, I can think of a use for his measure, which would be to estimate the melting temperature of a hybrid double-stranded DNA of megabase or greater length. But I can’t think of another use. Then again, counting mutations is what the 98% figure is about, and it’s what he claims to be doing. I think that’s on purpose.
You should also note that around half the indels are deletions, and even you wouldn’t claim (one hopes, at least) that a deletion of 1000 bases should be counted as 1000 deletions. Would you?
And you have to stop analogizing the genome with a software program. Let’s recall at least that most of the indels are in junk DNA. Do you write programs that are 90% non-functional code? No, don’t answer that one.
2 Likes
I’d have to say that I have seen some pretty bad programs.
On the other hand, a well written program might contains many comments explaining the code. Perhaps those comments should count as non-functional code.
I said not to answer.