SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

The shining beacon of all science is the ability of theory to make predictions.Evolution as fact and theory - WikipediaThe TOE does this and predictions have been validated. In spades.One of the predictions of the TOE is nested hierarchies. Not just occasionally, but for ALL organisms -- thus every organism and fossil is a test of the theory and not one has invalidated this prediction.That makes it valid science, no matter what YOU think.

Also false. I can predict protein function using the theory of evolution which can have many uses from bioremediation to design of pesticides.

quote:

---

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.

​

Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

​

Abstract
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

---

You telling us what is and isn't constructive in the field of biology is completely laughable. Then actually show that it is a lie instead of making yet another baseless accusation. Find a bird to mammal transitional. Find a rabbit in the Cambrian. Find a bat with feathers.There are TONS of ways to falsify the ToE. The only one lying continuously in this thread is you. Perhaps you should think about that for a second.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I EXPLAINED a number of times why what you expect of intermediates wouldn't occur.

---

Then I must have missed it. Please provide a reference (a link is preferred and simple with the mid= tag but thread and message numbers will do). I fear however that your explanations will be found lacking, since your "ordinary microevolution" would inevitably produce a large number of intermediates from your own description.

quote:

---

And what you call history that I'd supposedly have to alter is based on wrong dating so it isn't true history.

---

You say that, but I see no reason to believe it. I don't even see a reason to think that you have any idea of how much compression is required. Even if the dating was "wrong", a claim refuted by overwhelming evidence.You're going to have to provide much more detail of your chronology to convince me.

Here, I fixed it for you.There is not one useful constructive thing you can do with YEC. All the sciences would be totally corrupted by it if anyone was stupid enough to believe it, but Science and the TOE manage to contribute valid information because creationists are known to lie about everything and will never contribute any useful knowledge. All creationism is a lie, the most pernicious delusion ever foisted on humanity, supported nevertheless by a whole battalion of ignorant fanatics who arrogantly pride themselves on their ability to think but it is all a delusional fantasy. They just go on believing in it because they ignore the evidence that proves it wrong, because it IS all nothing but unimaginative lies, so every fact that comes to hand gets twisted or lied about. And meanwhile creationism goes on trying to destroy culture, human dignity, social stability, the meaning of life, Truth and education. And you aggressively defend it.Faith, you misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong, and you hate those so much, who try to show you the truth. There's no saving you from it.Have a nice day.

Pretty amazing, eh? Now, can you tell me how evolution corrupts geology? Good theories usually can accommodate new facts. That's the reason that creationism was abandoned long ago. Please provide an example of this destruction. All I see here is a bunch of assertions by yourself, with no supporting evidence. Well, I'm sure you would know... I love it when a YEC tells me what I think.

The Bible does not say how old the earth is...

OMG, I can't believe you would say this when you yourself admit to not knowing much about these subjects. I can't speak for Taq, but I certainly don't hate you or even what you stand for.What IS offensive is when you come here and say that you know almost nothing about genetics and then proceed to lecture those of us that have put considerable time and energy into learning about the subject as to how we are misinterpreting the facts. Genetics, geology, cellular biology are not beyond your ability to learn, but it is beyond your ability to take wild guesses about and simply make up bogus scenarios.You say we are all just guessing, but that is simply not true. Yes, there is some amount of guess work that goes into interpreting the past. Of course there is. But the difference is how we go about developing that guess work. You start with a conclusion and then try and fit evidence. We start with evidence and then try and draw conclusions. This is the point I was trying to get across to you in Why the Flood Never Happened when you called me a stupid idiot. (where was Mikey for that ad-hominem attack?) For me personally, the thing I am most "aggressive" about is that those who are supposedly defending the Word of Truth need to resort to half-truths, deceptions, mis-leading arguments, known falsehoods and clever sciency sounding terminology in order to defend "the truth." For me, if the ToE is wrong ... I am OK with that. If a literal version of creation is right ... I'm OK with that. If there was a global flood 4400 years ago ... I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is defending those points of view with BS.HBD

Indeed. Predictions are the gold standard. And a shining example of an evolutionary prediction is the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

Verification through prediction leading to discovery.When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?

Where did I say I know almost nothing about genetics? I think I know a fair amount for a layperson, especially about population genetics. Which isn't claiming to know a great deal, but not the same as saying I know "almost nothing."And I can say all that again:You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong ..This is what we creationists argue, what else would you expect me to say..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, you can. But that doesn't make it true. Generalizations. You have yet to do more than make broad assertions without support. Normally, we would expect you to support your assertions; but then you are a YEC...

Hi Faith,Still waiting for some answers ... Message 41 (repeated in Message 78), and Message 95 ...

quote:

---

If you have two sets of tree rings you can check to see if one confirms the other. The more documents you have that say the same thing the more confident you can be in the information, yes? So if you have four or five sets of tree rings that all have the same growth patterns of thickness correlated to growing conditions, you can have high confidence in their result, yes?

​

With the Ancient Sentinels there are a couple with more than 7,000 tree rings, and we can compare the ring thicknesses for the same numerical counts to see how well they agree.

​

Do you agree with this and if not, why?

​

Would you agree that the year of the flood would have been a very poor year for tree growth? So you could look for a narrow growth ring in all trees at that time, yes?

​

What other tests would you use?

---

I just do not see any clear demarcation of any kind among those tree rings for determining where the flood would divide pre-flood from post-flood growth or any significant difference between early and late rings.How would you determine this other than by guessing Faith?Just trying to understand, Faith -- where is the line between observational science and historical science in the tree rings?
Edited by RAZD, : sub

Indeed. AND they went back to continue the excavations and found the rear sections showing the rear hips and legs, pretty much as predicted from the initial find:

quote:

---

Message 36 of Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition : http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

​

quote:

---

However, only specimen blocks containing the front portion of Tiktaalik have been described thus far. As the researchers investigated additional blocks recovered from their original and subsequent expeditions to the dig site in northern Canada, they discovered the rear portion of Tiktaalik, which contained the pelves as well as partial pelvic fin material. The fossils included the complete pelvis of the original 'type' specimen, making a direct comparison of the front and rear appendages of a single animal possible.

​

The scientists were immediately struck by the pelvis, which was comparable to those of some early tetrapods. The Tiktaalik pelvic girdle was nearly identical in size to its shoulder girdle, a tetrapod-like characteristic. It possessed a prominent ball and socket hip joint, which connected to a highly mobile femur that could extend beneath the body. Crests on the hip for muscle attachment indicated strength and advanced fin function. And although no femur bone was found, pelvic fin material, including long fin rays, indicated the hind fin was at least as long and as complex as its forefin.

---

---

Those hip and fin bones show the same ability to walk as the front legs.Edited by RAZD, : added linkEdited by RAZD, : subt

Perhaps you could actually demonstrate that they are misinterpretations?

You have thrown wild accusations - it is actually becoming your MO. This one is most likely one of the most blatantly false of your ramblings.In scientific world the possibility of bringing forth something totally new is pursued every day and it is what makes science such a powerful tool in explaining what we have around and in us. You make it sound as if there is a worldwide delusion added with conspiracy to not allow the Bible in the scientific process.You have strong faith and conviction and I applaud you for it per se but have you ever considered that basically every other person, whether scientist or layman, who disagrees with you might be the ones who are right? Could it be that scientists are not deluded or wicked but actually good at their work and as ethical persons honest?Your second to last paragraph was just unbelievable - in the real world things are just the opposite, christianity is a delusion that is only tolerated because of its somewhat benign nature and above all its popularity.

Faith - How do you think discoveries are made? See Message 113If it's all just wrong headed interpretation how do discoveries like Tiktaalik come about?What discoveries supporting creationism have creationists ever made by applying their theories?If one theory leads directly to the doscovery of new phenomena, new data, and a competing theory has never led to the discovery of anything at all - Which theory should we consider superior? Isn't discovery a rather important aspect of science.....?