Introduction to Genetics

Just skimming it I see no "smoking gun."Please don't expect me to read long technical papers. Much as I might want to at some other time I'm trying to cope with this thread with a minimum of convoluted side tracks. It's so much better if you just put the answer into your own words as briefly as possible.The evidence appears to be all circumstantial, not at all "smoking gun" as you say. Similarities, similarities, similarities. That's what fuels the entire ToE. This organism is most similar to that one, therefore we infer genetic descent, [abe] and they are close on your charts too. Then we have the fact that this eye is similar to that one which is similar to another which is similar to the human eye, although they are very far from each other on the charts of relatedness, but nevertheless we can rank them in such a way as to make it *certain* that the human eye evolved. [/abe] You can never prove genetic descent [abe] (except of course where it is known from observation), [/abe] it all remains theory and assumption.ABE: But this reminds me that ERVs should be a topic on this thread. I never intended to get into my own theories here, I wanted this thread to be a place to get answers from the experts. Yes, truly. So I put up that question about pseudogenes and now it seems it would be a good idea to get some basic stuff about ERVs. I've read Wikipedia on it, I've skimmed this article, but both ASSUME ALL THE USUAL EVO STUFF. Maybe there's no way to avoid that it's so ingrained in you all. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add last paragraph

"Assumption" does not mean automatically wrong, as creationists are wont to imply. An assumption is essentially a method for testing something. Here's an example. If we assume X, then Y must occur. So, we are testing for Y. If Y occurs, then the assumption, X, may be accurate. If Y does not occur, then the assumption X is not accurate and you try something else. Claiming "its just an assumption" only displays ignorance of how science works--or a denial of the scientific method.And "theory" denotes an explanation for a collection of facts that 1) successfully explains them all, 2) is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and 3) makes successful predictions. Theory is the highest level of explanation in science."Proof," which creationists keep demanding, has no role in science. Try down the hall at the math department.So, creationists shouldn't say "it all remains theory and assumption" because that shows they are either ignorant of the scientific method, or deliberately misrepresenting it in pursuit of their own anti-science agenda.I can't believe that you are ignorant of these matters, given how many times they have been explained to you.

But I'm not saying assumptions are wrong. The point is that assumptions are assumptions, unproven, the assumptions in this case are based on the expectations from the ToE, and yet although they ARE but assumptions they are treated as fact and not as assumptions. This is NOT good scientific procedure.I think it's time that it was fairly recognized that since creationists do keep raising these issues that maybe there is something to them that you should all consider for a change. We aren't lying, we aren't stupid, and we are persistent on the point that the ToE is scientifically wanting.ABE: I'm not ignorant of your views on "proof" and so on, in fact I've answered them before here. I consider such pedantries to be the usual definitional manipulations, with no real substance to them, that have no useful effect except to interfere with clear thinking. And the answer is that the hard sciences DO have something close to proof and it is hairsplitting to claim they don't, while the historical/interpretive sciences CAN'T have anything close to proof and that's why you like to emphasize this point as you do. It is intended to support the false claim that lthere is no difference between the methods of science or their reliability between the hard and the interpreteive sciences. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure you are. You and other creationists are trying to imply that "assumptions" are way below wild-ass-guesses in terms of reliability or accuracy. You are trying to imply that they are useless, wrong, and shouldn't be considered a part of "real" science. Otherwise you wouldn't keep harping on the subject. The real problem is that you don't like where those assumptions lead. Otherwise you wouldn't care a whit.Assumptions that are supported by evidence and are not contradicted by evidence can be treated as fact until shown otherwise. An example of an assumption: I assume the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. We have no proof that it will do so, but that assumption is not just a wild-ass-guess. Nor is it wrong until it can be demonstrated to be wrong. Again, creationists are attacking assumptions because they don't like the results, not because they can actually show those assumptions are wrong or inappropiate in their use. That creationists keep raising vacuous issues does not make those issues valid. Some of you are lying, and some of you are stupid. Some are both.But you have no business saying that the theory of evolution is "scientifically wanting." You should be saying that it is "scripturally wanting."Further, creationists are inherently anti-science and that should automatically disqualify them from having any valid opinions in the matter. You don't pretend to have valid opinions on brain surgery or koniology so why should you think you have a valid opinion on evolution and related matters?

The assumptions in question are NOT supported by evidence, that's the whole point!

That is your belief. That is not what scientific evidence shows.

Been skipping around reading about viruses and retroviruses. Just want to report some examples of what I mean about the difference between real science and pseudoscience that is nothing but a bunch of unproved assumptions. I should take a whole example and identify each part of it but unfortunately my eyes are hurting too much for that right now; maybe later. Meanwhile just FYI:THIS is science: The discovery of the first human retrovirus: HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 | Retrovirology | Full Text
This is ALL fact, evidence, reasoning that can be followed and checked out in context. It's in narrative form rather than the form of a technical presentation and maybe that's why there's nothing in it that smacks of evo mystification. Not that I'd expect a technical paper to read like this, I'm merely pointing out that there's nothing in it that's evo fantasy.THIS on the other hand is science mixed with pseudoscience:
Endogenous viral element - Wikipedia
Most of it is science. The paragraph about paleovirology is where the pseudoscience comes in, where the data is crammed into the ToE's Old Earth assumption of millions of years for this or that. It purports to give the actual history of "germline integration events" as if it were possible to know anything about events in the genome millions of years ago. Such things are always asserted as fact, never evidenced. Real science discusses the facts in a way that can draw you into the reasoning process (although of course there are some reports that are too technical for some of us nevertheless); the pseudoscience just hits you with a preposterous assertion without bothering to try to defend it; It's pure mystification. What we used to call "mind-rape" or an even grungier term.This next one is the one Taq linked. Since it's about finding phylogenetic markers it's bound to get into the pseudoscience territory, and reading stuff like this is a horrific struggle for me, being a combo of unsupportable assumptions with genuine scientific facts, and of course some terminological struggles as well, but that part I'm not faulting:
Just a moment...

No, the belief is yours because these are naked assumptions without evidence.

unproved assumptions???You didn't learn a thing from my previous post, did you. You just went blithely on your way as if I hadn't said a thing.How can you even pretend to do science when you are speaking gibberish?If you want to have a discussion concerning science at least use the language that scientists use.I realize that, as a creationist, you are used to making things up as you go along but I'm not going to play that game.I'm no longer going to read your posts beyond your first abject misuse of scientific terms that have been explained to you dozens of time.You want your posts to be read, straighten up your act.

Far as I can see I answered all your posts. What exactly are you claiming I ignored?

That is not what Im saying at all. We all have the right to think and interpret things our own way. It is just that you propose creationists "models" or "theories" when in fact they do not exist. Everything creationism has accomplished so far is to say that ToE is wrong without giving an alternative that has some sort of explanatory power.Science works in exactly that way that new ideas are brought to the fray and then scrutinized using the scientific method. Creationism begins with assumptions and distorts evidence thus it NEVER can produce anything viable.Just to make it clear, there is NO creationist model or theory, just denial of evidence.

It just occurred to me that you're probably complaining that I used the word "unproved" after you told me how I'm supposed to think about it? I did answer that, it's the most natural word that comes to mind, but if it matters so much, would you prefer it if I said "unverified" or "unconfirmed" assumptions or something along those lines?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We can both repeat our complaints about our opponents' point of view, plus you've added the usual Science Creed and the Evo Creed, and it's all simply a statement of belief.I can understand that it is particularly offensive even to consider that creationists DO have a point of view that should be taken seriously, because you are so convinced that it is science that you are defending, against what you think of as religion. All you are doing here is a tit for tat, echoing exactly what I've been saying about evolutionism. Of course I suppose it can be said on both sides, but it IS true of evolutionism as I've been pointing out, that the interpretive sciences that support the ToE are wrapped around bald assumptions without any verification whatever. I believe I've shown this many times.I disagree of course that creationism "distorts" anything. We explain the same evidence that you explain, but explain it differently. The evidence is not distorted in the process, simply differently interpreted.And of course I disagree with every word you've said anyway. I have been presenting, albeit in bits and pieces, what should be considered to be at least a creationist model in the making. It does have explanatory power, you just don't like the explanation. And of course you could say the same thing about my opinion of evolutionism. Is there any point in continuing to state and restate these obvious opinions?

• The ToE says All life was descended from earlier life. This is an article of faith, of belief, based on commitment to the ToE. It hasn't been shown to be true and it can't be shown to be true (is this a better way of saying it than "proved?) The particular Creationist model I've been pursuing says all life was created as separate Species in the same time frame as human beings. This IS a different model, wouldn't you say?
  ​
• THe ToE says DNA evolved just as everything else did; YEC as I've been pursuing it says DNA was built in to the original Species or Kinds and the genome of each governs only that Species, and again, surely this must be considered to be an alternative model.
  --- My particular defense of this idea is that the processes of evolution that isolate populations from each other, which is the general way races are formed, lead to reduced genetic diversity. This also appears to be the main route to "speciation" but if the supposed "new species" in fact has reduced genetic variability this is clearly a wishful fantasy. The YEC model as I understand it says that life was created to vary, to evolve over time, into myriads of fascinating new races, but that a calamity known as the Fall brought death into the world and now all life is threatened by disease and death whereas if the Fall had never happened we'd just have beautiful subspecies of every known Species. And again, this IS a model and it does have explanatory power. It's obvious that species are threatened by extinction. That's why we have conservationist programs.
  ​
• The ToE says that mutations are the means by which DNA was/is created, while also admitting that most mutations are neutral and many are deleterious, claiming the latter are selected out. My YEC view says this is a complete misunderstanding, that mutations are not a normal occurrence, or let's say most of them aren't, they are mistakes, and their overall effect is destructive, even though this may not show up for quite some time. There ARE, however, thousands of known genetic diseases, and only a tiny number of mutations that are even claimed to confer any known benefit, and in most cases the benefit is a trade-off with another disease, such as malaria protection by sickle cell anemia. This looks like a thoroughly inadequate method for producing viable genetic material. And again, this is a plank in a creationist model. The facts fit the model of life's actually deteriorating rather than improving in any way.
  ​
• The ToE also proposes of course that mutations make up for any reduction in genetic diversity. My YEC model says 1) mutations hardly ever IF ever make DNA that acts like normal functioning DNA. The best it can do is manage not to change things, but then what do you have? Nothing really. And 2) if mutations did add genetic diversity of a valid kind to a new population, all they could add is an allele to replace another allele and one or the other is going to get selected to make up the overall "look" of the population and in the end since one gets selected out there is nothing that can really be called an increase in genetic diversity.
  ​
• The ToE says evolution has created everything that now lives and that this has been going on for many millions of years. The evidence for this is all circumstantial, basically boiling down to the observation of similarities with differences between organisms that can be arranged in a mental hierarchy. This gets translated into Genetic Descent with Modification although this is nothing more than a definitional coup without anything in actual reality to corroborate it. This is in fact only Reification: the treating as real of a mere mental construct or theory, calling it Fact when it's only word manipulation. YEC of course says the original Species are confined to their own genome, which has the capacity to vary enormously but always within the genome, always within the Kind. This IS a model, and it does account for the known facts.
  ​
• The ToE's evidence includes the fossil record which is remarkably sorted from bottom to top according to what seems to be a hierarchy of development from more primitive to more advanced or modern (certainly complexity is not the criterion since the "lower" creatures are often amazingly complex). Of course one could wonder why evolution would operate in any particular identifiable direction onwards and upwards since one of its cardinal "tenets" is "fitness" which shouldn't imply any particular direction of adaptive traits, but it does have to be admitted that it LOOKS plausible if you allow for that idea and it seems to defeat the YEC idea that the worldwide Flood of Noah explains all the strata and their fossil contents. Nevertheless the Flood does remain the YEC alternative model to the Geologic Column, and it does have explanatory power.

Well, that's a few elements of the debate as I see it, including both the critique of the ToE and the alternative model that opposes it, just off the top of my head. I'm sure I've left a lot out, but it looks to me like there is both a critique of the ToE AND an actual model on the YEC side that opposes the evolutionist model, and that your objections are false.

Well, the best reason for doing so is because I am the one who put it up and since I find it interesting then the entire universe must also find it interesting. What more reason does one need? The table lists each human chromosome, number of genes on each, number of exons/introns and sizes in base pairs for each.
The source may be better for your eyes, it is a bit clearer but the same color scheme. Maybe a printout would be best.Another interesting site I found (yes, interesting to the entire universe, again) is this one. It lists information on each chromosome and if you follow a link on the individual chromosome page you get information on some of the identified genes on that chromosome.The entire site is quite good. If some message/book/paper gives a reference to some specific gene by name you can look it up here for detailed information on that gene. You can also look at general areas like "Eyes and Vision" and "Immune system" and find identified genes that are known to influence these areas.A handy reference indeed. OK, so maybe not the entire universe will find this as interesting as I do. Sometimes I can be too easily entertained.

These two statements do not carry equal weight. The first has 150 years of research, testing and development and is corroborated by several scientific disciplines - including the non-biological sciences - and contradicted by none. It is accepted by all scientific establishments regardless of country or religious belief. It's also accepted by the vast majority of Christians globally.The second is your own personal opinion based on the disparate views of a group of fundamental Christians who can't agree amongst themselves what their actual 'model' is. Definitely; the claims of fanatics must always be met head on and dealt with wherever and whenever they arise.