• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

40% of peered reviewed scientific articles can't be reproduced

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Your questions contain lead-ins. I'm not going to answer questions where the only answer is something you want to hear, in a way YOU'd like. Rather, i'm focusing on you putting words into my mouth:



You said there in plain speech "exactly, you think it's a conspiracy" even though i never implied that i think it's a conspiracy. Therefore, i'm asking you: "What conspiracy is that?"

And you have failed to provide an answer. Therefore, my answers to your questions are valid.
Your the only one that first used the word conspiracy, so if you don’t know what conspiracy you were talking about I guess you were just saying anything you thought sounded good at the time....

Funny how the one that brings up conspiracy doesn’t even know what conspiracy he’s talking about. Lol, you people are something else and not very entertaining anymore...
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
There is more information in some teeth than you might think. For many mammals, teeth can distinguish between major groups, for example the differences between felines and canines. The tooth can give information about what is eaten and the size can give information about the size of the animal.
Yes, like imagining an entire race of humanoids from a pigs tooth. Or maybe Nebraska man might spur your factual memory.... They are indeed full of something.....
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Just goes to show that people in control direct things wether it’s fact or fiction..... evolution the top fiction of all time....
Actually, in the case of evolution, it had to claw itself up from nothing to overcome the ruling prejudice of the time - religion. For a long time, evolution was ridiculed as an idea and suppressed by religious institutes who believed it was contrary to the the origin stories they wished to keep people convinced of, but evolution managed to weather that particular prejudice and become and the most widely evidenced and accepted theory in modern science, despite thousands of years of ingrained prejudiced against it. And it did so by being good science.

You can't fake facts. Something that global religions are only now, very slowly, starting to learn.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
But that’s why you can’t support your claims of poo with any scientific facts.....
Hilarious!
From the thread you've been ignoring...

It has been claimed/implied by a creationist that the type of DNA analyses used in Courts of Law are more stringent and rigorous than those used in evolutionary biology - that such tests (those used in court) have been tested and are accurate. It has been indicated by this creationist that, in fact, these tests used in court are far better than those used in actual molecular biological analyses of phylogeny because they do not employ algorithms to assess the data, and further, that in courts of law, "genomes are compared side by side, loci by loci, not by matching by algorithms."


I will show unequivocally that this creationist's position is premised entirely on abject ignorance of the techniques employed; this creationist is uninformed and uneducated on these topics and has no business making such assertions on these and related topics.


1. DNA analysis techniques used in court.

For this segment I will rely primarily on the National Institute of Justice's "DNA Evidence Basics" page and the relevant links on that page, as well as the book "DNA Technology in Forensic Science". Any quotes used will come from one or the other of these sources.


There are generally 5 types of DNA analysis/analytical techniques employed by courts of law. Which type is used depends on a number of factors - cost, questions being asked, condition of biological material, etc.

They are:

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), Short Tandem Repeats (STR, aka microsatellite), Y-Chromosome, and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The last 2 rely on analyses of specific markers found in these sources, so they basically fall under STR/RFLP anyway.

A brief explanation of each technique follows:

1. PCR - this technique can be used in and of itself, or in generating additional ‘raw material’ on which other analyses can be used. It makes copies of a target sequence, the end points of which are determined by the use of short DNA sequences called primers. In some cases, the length of the fragment produced by using the same pairs of primers can be used in a similar fashion to what is described below for RFLP. By definition, this does not use the entire genome.

2. RFLP – this technique uses bacterial restriction enzymes (enzymes that recognize specific DNA sequences, bind to them, and ‘cut’ the DNA at that point) to cut larger DNA fragments (or whole genomes) into smaller fragments. These smaller fragments are then run through a gel material using an electric current, and the fragments are separated by their length. Fragments of differing lengths, indicating the presence of indels, are the ‘length polymorphisms’ referred to in the RFLP moniker. These polymorphic fragments are heritable (or, rather, the DNA sequences that produce them are), so individuals sharing a certain number of them do so via ‘common ancestry’, so to speak. This technique may use an entire genome as raw material, but it is only the lengths of a set amount of fragments that are considered in the analysis – so, this is not the whole genome being compared ‘loci by loci.’.

3. STR (aka microsatellite) – In many areas of the genome, there are regions that are comprised of short tandem repeats – for example, 10s or hundreds of copies of TA (i.e., TATATATATATA…). Such areas are prone to polymorphisms, which again are heritable. The FBI has established a 13-locus strategy for DNA forensics (“For example, the likelihood that any two individuals (except identical twins) will have the same 13-loci DNA profile can be as high as 1 in 1 billion or greater.”). STRs are not the whole genome.

4. Y-chromosome – this only works with males, of course, so is often used in rape cases. It also relies on a set of markers (specific DNA sequences) on the Y chromosome (not the whole genome).

5. mtDNA – More useful in, say, identifying old remains in which the nuclear DNA has decayed sufficiently that RFLP or other analyses are not likely to work well. Regardless of why it is used, it, too relies on specific markers, not the whole mtGenome.

As to whether or not “algorithms” are used in these analyses in courts of law, a few link clicks from the NIJ site linked above shows us things like:

STR (Short Tandem Repeat) Data Analysis and Interpretation Software. Learn the basics of data analysis software, become familiar with the purpose of GeneScan® and Genotyper® software, learn the difference between GeneScan® and Genotyper® software and GeneMapper ID® software, and become aware of the unique features of GeneMapper ID® software, and understand FMBIO® Analysis software and STaRCallTM software as related to GeneScan® and Genotyper® software.​


RFLP and PCR forensic analyses do not necessarily require software for analysis – it is just a matter of comparing band sizes in a gel (not whole genomes, not ‘loci by loci’), but it is probably the case that some analytical software is used, especially for searching databases and the like.

Just looking at these main techniques used by courts of law for doing various DNA analyses negates, 100%, the creationist’s claim that whole genomes are compared “side by side, loci by loci”.


2. As to how phylogentic analyses are done…*

Regarding phylogenetic analyses, PCR is a staple component.

RFLP - As I have previously documented, RFLP analyses have been used to assess Primate phylogeny, and the results were congruent with other DNA-based analyses (see, for example, this).

Strike 1.


STR – these have been used to assess modern human phylogeny:

“Reconstructing recent human phylogenies with forensic STR loci: A statistical approach”

Reconstructing recent human phylogenies with forensic STR loci: A statistical approach

as well as primate phylogeny:

“Microsatellite polymorphisms reveal phylogenetic relationships in primates”

Microsatellite polymorphisms reveal phylogenetic relationships in primates

Strike 2.


Y-chromosome – “A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates”
From the abstract:

“Gene partitions were analyzed separately, as well as combined, for genome comparison and phylogenetic reconstruction. Six gene partitions were created, corresponding to X-chromosome, Y-chromosome, autosome, intron, exon and UTR segments.”

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

Strike 3.

mtDNA – “Primate phylogenetic relationships and divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes”

Primate phylogenetic relationships and divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes

It should be noted that the human mtGenome is only on the order of 16kb



Strike 4.



3. Regarding the use of ‘matching algorithms’, it is hard to know what the creationist is actually referring to. It is the case that in his related rants, he brings up claims apparently made by disgraced hack Jeff Tomkins regarding his use of BLAST in assessing % sequence identity in humans and chimps (despite the fact that what Tomkins described, as relayed by the creationist in question, is not how such numbers are typically produced). The initial assessments of the % identity between humans and chimps was done using the entire single-copy genome of each in 1984, and while the analysis of those data was criticized by many, the values obtained were in the 90+%, so no ‘random matching’ involved. When the chimpanzee genome paper came out, there, too, a large proportion of both genomes were used, but not via ‘random matching’:


Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ∼2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y….

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12,33,34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species….​

No ’random matching’ – that is not how one gets an actual alignment:

Genome Alignment. We evaluated three independent methods for aligning chimpanzee contigs to human genome sequence. The first utilized BLASTZ (Schwartz 2003) to align and score non-repetitive chimpanzee regions against repeat-masked human sequence and BLAT (Kent 2002) to process the more repetitive regions. Alignment chains differentiated between orthologous and paralogous alignments (Kent 2003) and only “reciprocal best” alignments were retained in the alignment set.​

There is a lot more after that quote, but it is pretty technical. It is from the Supplementary Data for the chimp genome paper.

**Please be aware, unlike some others, that BLAST is actually a collection of different programs. BLASTN, what Tomkins used, is a ‘random’ search program. BLASTZ is an alignment program – it does not randomly search for sequence identity


TAKE HOME MESSAGE:


When the creationist declared that in courts of law, “genomes are compared side by side, loci by loci, not by matching by algorithms”, he was either amazingly uninformed, was bluffing, or was engaging in mendacity. His untoward implications were dishonest, fallacious, and done out of either ignorance or malice (or both).


*one could just go here for the basics...
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Your the only one that first used the word conspiracy, so if you don’t know what conspiracy you were talking about I guess you were just saying anything you thought sounded good at the time....

Funny how the one that brings up conspiracy doesn’t even know what conspiracy he’s talking about. Lol, you people are something else and not very entertaining anymore...

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing. I guess you expected me to have forgotten this thing in the time you spent hiding and thinking a retort. Took you long enough. :D

Let's review. I claimed you probably believe in a conspiracy that all atheist scientists are involved in because you take it your personal mission to prove those scientists wrong. Yet the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents you from seeing your utter incapability in actually doing so.

So, in your great moment of apparent clarity, you get the wonderful idea to call me a conspiracy nut "because I see conspiracies everywhere."

So what conspiracies do I see?

I know what conspiracy I accused you of believing. I could be wrong but since you never denied it... Now, can you show which one I believe in? :)

I.E You're deflecting and projecting, but i'll play along anyway. This exchange is not going the way you think it is. Your memory is too weak.

Just goes to show that people in control direct things wether it’s fact or fiction..... evolution the top fiction of all time....

Wait. Why are you shooting yourself in the foot? I don't understand. I thought your objective was to make someone else look foolish.
 
Last edited:

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Actually, in the case of evolution, it had to claw itself up from nothing to overcome the ruling prejudice of the time - religion. For a long time, evolution was ridiculed as an idea and suppressed by religious institutes who believed it was contrary to the the origin stories they wished to keep people convinced of, but evolution managed to weather that particular prejudice and become and the most widely evidenced and accepted theory in modern science, despite thousands of years of ingrained prejudiced against it. And it did so by being good science.

You can't fake facts. Something that global religions are only now, very slowly, starting to learn.
Says piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc, etc......

What facts?

Bacteria remaining bacteria despite the number of mutations?????

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies despite the number of mutations?????

Coelacanth being the claimed intermediary for 20 years until one was found alive? That fact? About the same as the other facts.

Fossils of every creature remaining the same until they go extinct? Connected to others with “missing” common ancestors for every single creature on every single tree for every single claimed split?

Facts? Wasn’t aware that imagination counted as facts....
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Says piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc, etc......

What facts?

Bacteria remaining bacteria despite the number of mutations?????

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies despite the number of mutations?????

Coelacanth being the claimed intermediary for 20 years until one was found alive? That fact? About the same as the other facts.

Fossils of every creature remaining the same until they go extinct? Connected to others with “missing” common ancestors for every single creature on every single tree for every single claimed split?

Facts? Wasn’t aware that imagination counted as facts....

You really think we haven't seen these same rhetorical regurgitations before on this forum?
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Right here, right now.... I see no facts presented, just more avoidance.....

I haven't made factual claims. Other than those that directly relate to your person or behavior.

Stop imagining that your rhetoric is working. It'll make this much less painful for us both.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
I haven't made factual claims. Other than those that directly relate to your person or behavior.

Stop imagining that your rhetoric is working. It'll make this much less painless for us both.
Yes, I know. Nothing you have said has been factual.

Except your statement that you have made no factual claims..... at least you recognize your rhetoric is just that with no factual basis....
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Says piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc, etc......
Piltdown man was a forgery that 1) never fit evolutionary predictions and 2) was discovered to be a fake by comparing it with real examples of contemporary human ancestor fossils. Nebraska man was mis-classified in 1922 and corrected in 1927.

What facts?
Every single one of them.

Bacteria remaining bacteria despite the number of mutations?????

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies despite the number of mutations?????
All organisms reproduce variations of what they are.

Coelacanth being the claimed intermediary for 20 years until one was found alive?
You do realise that a species still existing doesn't mean it can't be an intermediate species, right?

Fossils of every creature remaining the same until they go extinct?
And then another species appearing from nowhere later in the fossil record that coincidentally happens to share a lot of physical similarities with the previous species despite not being related? Is that what you believe?

Connected to others with “missing” common ancestors for every single creature on every single tree for every single claimed split?
Are you expecting us to have a fossilized example of every generation of every organism that has ever lived? Fact is, the thousands of transitional fossils have been found, and they all only make sense using evolutionary theory.

Facts? Wasn’t aware that imagination counted as facts....
You're not informed enough to discern imagination from facts.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Yes, I know. Nothing you have said has been factual.

Except your statement that you have made no factual claims..... at least you recognize your rhetoric is just that with no factual basis....

Reading comprehension. I said facts regarding your person and behavior. You're avoiding having to answer to mine and others' longer posts with this so that's another thing i'm saying about you.

You're a bit like a poor caricature of an adult.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, like imagining an entire race of humanoids from a pigs tooth. Or maybe Nebraska man might spur your factual memory.... They are indeed full of something.....
You cling to ancient errors, but that is understood considering what all you cling to.

Science recognized this error and moved on. You should recognize your own and do the same.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Piltdown man was a forgery that 1) never fit evolutionary predictions and 2) was discovered to be a fake by comparing it with real examples of contemporary human ancestor fossils. Nebraska man was mis-classified in 1922 and corrected in 1927.


Every single one of them.
Yes, only after we had to listen to how the proved evolution....

All organisms reproduce variations of what they are.
Husky produces Husky, Asian produces Asian. Tiny variation is not disputed. Nor is the fact that Asian mates with African and produces the variation Afro-Asian.....

You do realise that a species still existing doesn't mean it can't be an intermediate species, right?
You do realize it doesn’t mean it is either. It’s not my burden to prove punk unicorns exist.

And then another species appearing from nowhere later in the fossil record that coincidentally happens to share a lot of physical similarities with the previous species despite not being related? Is that what you believe?
You mean like misclassifying say the offspring of the Husky and Mastiff (the Chinook) as a separate species because you can’t tell what mated with what in the fossil record from a pile of bones when it suddenly appeared where it didn’t exist before????

Are you expecting us to have a fossilized example of every generation of every organism that has ever lived? Fact is, the thousands of transitional fossils have been found, and they all only make sense using evolutionary theory.
No, we aren’t discussing claimed transitional, but your claimed “missing” common ancestors where every split exists.... not even one?

You're not informed enough to discern imagination from facts.
Says those that can’t discern imagination from facts and keep presenting imagination as fact....
 
Top