Hi

Using the statistics mentioned below can it be argued that instead of man evolving from pig and chimp, is there a possibility that pig and chimp may have evolved originally from man?


A draft version of the pig (Sus scrofa) genome has recently been completed. See NCBI Pig Genome Resources
I haven't seen any overall % identity number, but one can say The pig genome is of similar size (3 x 10^9 bp), complexity and chromosomal organization as the human genome. This is from http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research... eSEQ021203.pdf

The human chimp comparison is well known. If you compare the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), the genomes are a little less than 99% identical. This identity between two unrelated humans is about 99.9%. Neither of these comparisons include the loss & gains of DNA termed indels. These differences are also called copy number differences & there isn't an easy number of expressing this difference. An example of a copy number difference between humans is the gene responsible for color blindness. One way of making this comparison is to identify regions which are highly similar from the genetic maps. These regions are called syntenic segments. The expectation is that the size of the regions will decrease the further apart (time since the last common ancestor) the species are.

So how similar are our genes to a pig or a chimp? For this question I choose 1 gene. I compared albumen gene. The human (GenBank: NM_000477) to the chimp (GenBank: XM_517233) and to the pig (GenBank: NM_001005208) albumin mRNA sequences. I compared the sequences pairwise with program called BLAST (Basic Local Alignement Search tool) at the NCBI (BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool)

The Human vs Pig albumen genes are 83% identical (Identities = 1739/2091, Gaps = 80/2091 (3%)).
The Human vs Chimp albumen genes are 99% identical (Identities = 2119/2136, Gaps = 0/2136 (0%)).
The Chimp vs Pig albumen genes are 82% identical (Identities = 1668/2017, Gaps = 84/2017 (4%)).

You can make a nice argument for evolution with your question. If the pig, chimp & human albumin genes were the products of a separate creation there would be no reason to believe that the ~350 nucleotide differences between the human and the pig would the same as the ~350 differences between the chimp and the pig. I haven't done this multiple sequence alignment. It might never have been done. BUT, it is easily done & I would predict, based on the evolutionary relationships, that >90% of the differences with the pig will be shared between the human & chimp sequences. (Cited from Jen02081 in this forum)

Thank you!

The fossil evidence shows otherwise.

We have a lot in common with pig hearts and skin, but it doesn't make us closer to pigs than to chimps overall.

And I just don't get your last paragraph at all. '.. there would be no reason to believe' is based on the fact that all 3 species have very close albumin? How can you draw conclusions from that?
We 'share' closely in degrees and in differing parts of our physiologies all the way back to the tadpole.

Hi Joy

The "there would be reason to believe" paragraph was also cited from Jem02081's response to another question. Sorry for the confusion.
What I'm suggesting and would appreciate evidence to either back my suggestion up or prove it wrong; is it plausible that the theory of evolution could be viewed from the opposite vantage point that instead of man evolving from ape, it may have been the other way around that, ape transformed from man. I bring forth the similar suggestion that pig may have also transformed from man. This is why I cited the findings above.

Simply comparing the differences in gene sequences between species doesn't give you any information about the historical evolution of the species - i.e. whether "a came from b," or "b came from a," or "both a and b came from something else." The only thing you can conclude from comparing these gene sequences is that chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than are chimps to pigs or humans to pigs. Sort of like comparing the genes of two human cousins and an unrelated stranger - the fact the cousins will have closer matching genes does not imply that one gave birth to the other. In this same way current evolutionary theory does not say that humans evolved from chimps (or vice versa) but rather that humans and apes (including modern chimps) evolved from a common ancestor.

Also - I would agree that the majority of difference between the pig and chimp would be the same differences between the pig and human - otherwise the math wouldn't work out. If you have only 1% misalignment between species a and b and 17% misalignment between a and c then the misalignment between b and c must be between 16% and 18%.

Ebaines

Thank you for your reply. Saying that apes and humans share a common ancestor is also a theory.
But what I wanted help with is if there is a way to possibly trace that some humans were turned into apes and some into pigs.
The historical reference to this is mentioned in ancient scripture that mentions God smiting certain people into apes and pigs and with contemporary scientific data linking human to ape and to pig made me wonder if there could be truth behind this and more importatntly, if there is a way to research the possibility.

But what I wanted help with is if there is a way to possibly trace that some humans were turned into apes and some into pigs.
The historical reference to this is mentioned in ancient scripture that mentions God smiting certain people into apes and pigs and with contemporary scientfic data linking human to ape and to pig made me wonder if there could be truth behind this and more importatntly, if there is a way to research the possibility.

I was wondering why you were focusing on pigs in your question. Since this is a science forum we will limit our discussion to scientific findings. There is no scientific evidence that any humans have evolved into other species. And certainly no evidence that any species (human or otherwise) has ever transformed into another already-existing species. Also - whereas humans and pigs do indeed share a large number of genes, so do humans and horses, or humans and cats, as do any two mammals. Certainly the alignment of genes between any two mammalian species is bound to be much closer than between, say, a mammal and a jellyfish.

BTW - you say that humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is "also a theory." It is indeed the prevailing scientific theory. Any thought that pigs (or chimps) somehow evolved from humans is not a theory at all - it's at best an idea, or a conjecture, but without any scientific basis. The difference is that a coherent scientific theory fits with the natural evidence - in this case the fossil record, archeological findings, discoveries in genetics, etc. - to explain why we see what we do.

[Quote Ebaines]whereas humans and pigs do indeed share a large number of genes, so do humans and horses, or humans and cats, as do any two mammals.Certainly the alignment of genes between any two mammalian species is bound to be much closer than between, say, a mammal and a jellyfish.[unquote]

True but can we safely say that the number of gene similarities of BOTH pig & Chimp are by far the most closest to that of human? Also characteristics such as intelligence (see pig solving computer games, and obviously that of chimp) and other traits such as swine is the only compatible living tissue transplant to humans and numerous others to name.. Working with such compelling data and further research could possibly one day exhibit the proposed theory. To say the least it is interesting research and I'd appreciate any further tips from people with similar knowledge to Jen02081

Wait - are you now claiming that the pig genome is more closely aligned with humans than any other animal, save chimps? Really? Please provide your reference for this. I think you'll find that other primates - such as as gorillas, orangutans, and baboons - are more closely related to humans than pigs.

At first I was a little intrigued, then when I heard the Biblical argument I figured I leave (and thanks to ebaines, didn't say anything I'd regret), and now I'm fascinated by someone who has glommed onto minute details of genetics without any regard to any other scientific evidence. I suppose it is nothing new, but it still surprises me.

Dear Joypulv

To each his own I suppose. On the flip side some people may find it just as predictable that atheist scientists are always given more credibility or shall we say acceptance than that of creationist scientists. It's a contemporary affliction as common as those who find lady gaga more interesting (acceptable) than Gandhi. Faith isn't a dirty word: And there's nothing wrong with people of faith researching Gods clues. Besides 'glomming' into details of genetics is science.
Again I'd greatly appreciate tips from people with similar knowledge to Jen02081

Ebaines I didn't say that pig genomes are more closely aligned to humans than apes. I said what I said, that the only animal to human compatible transplant is from pig to human... The porcine replacement valve in open heart surgery. Im saying that it is striking how the most closest animals to humans are the pig and the chimp. Im wondering is that a coincidence and I'm asking if it can be scientifically researched.

Ebaines I didn't say that pig genomes are more closely aligned to humans than apes. I said what I said, that the only animal to human compatible transplant is from pig to human...The porcine replacement valve in open heart surgery. Im saying that it is striking how the most closest animals to humans are the pig and the chimp. Im wondering is that a coincidence and im asking if it can be scientifically researched.

Hi Alan,

I think the problem here is Aristotle. You would have thought Newton got rid of him a long time ago. Apparently he is a live and well in Biology.

I think the problem is ranking groups of organisms into Kingdom, Phyla and Orders.

This suggests that different groups, such as mammals with he same rank are equivalent. For example, all are warm blooded, have hair, have a similar protein in the blood.

Using this type of classification we tempted to say that humans, chimps and pigs are almost family level groups in this Linnaean classification system.

I would think this classification is misleading because these groups are not really comparable because of their different degrees of biological differentiation. I think ebanes touched upon this in a previous post.

I guess I am saying the classification system you are using in this instance is limited.

Tut

Hi Tu
Thank you for your input. Every concept starts with research and often the most notable scientific breakthroughs happen when one ventures into unchartered territory of experiments & research.
I'm not particularly classifying anything into a certain system. What I am proposing is that due to the available data; the pig vs human and the chimp vs human are alarmingly similar and coincide with ancient scripture.
To an atheist the very suggestion evokes denial and knee jerk rebuttals. With all the similarities that pigs and chimps have to humans that further research be made into this matter. I would personally be interested in following up the matter with a scientist whom is willing to invest time towards research in this field. What Jen02081 researched is the type of research I'm interested in.

Alanood

Hi Tu
Thank you for your input. Every concept starts with research and often the most notable scientific breakthroughs happen when one ventures into unchartered territory of experiments & research.


Couldn't agree more.




I'm not particularly classifying anything into a certain system. What I am proposing is that due to the available data; the pig vs human and the chimp vs human are alarmingly similar and coincide with ancient scripture.



Ah, I see. I'll get back to that at the end of my post.




To an atheist the very suggestion evokes denial and knee jerk rebuttals.



Just for the record I am not an atheist.



With all the similarities that pigs and chimps have to humans that further research be made into this matter. I would personally be interested in following up the matter with a scientist whom is willing to invest time towards research in this field. What Jen02081 researched is the type of research I'm interested in.


Sorry I can't help you there, I'm not a biologist therefore the following is just an opinion. You are probably not going to agree with me. But anyway... for what it's is worth.

I you are not classifying then you would need to avoid talking about similarities. Nonetheless, in terms of biology and science I am not sure that leaves very much if you are not using classification as a tool.

Because of the nature of what you are proposing; in the end I think your conclusion will necessarily involve a teleological explanation. Teleological type explanations are avoided in biology. Not because they are right or wrong, but because they are not part of the scientific method. I think you will end up doing metaphysics, not science. Not that there is anything wrong with metaphysics.

Tut

I never stated whether I was an atheist. That was a huge assumption, Alanood.
I find Lady Gaga and Gandhi equally interesting.
No one here has claimed that faith is a dirty word, or that people of faith are to be put down for researching religious clues. (In fact the archeological evidence of ancient religious sites is a favorite topic of mine.)
Please don't leap to such conclusions about the responders here.
If you want responses just from people who have 'similar knowledge (how would we know how similar our knowledge is) to Jen02081,' then you are going to be very disappointed.

Dear Tut, I appreciate your input and suggestions greatly, thank you. It would be interesting to discuss with you your personal take on theory of evolution since you are not an atheist either (perhaps a different thread?)

With regards to your comment: I said "I am not particularly classifying" as I haven't ruled out classification entirely, I am choosing to keep my mind & options open in order to some how think out of the box, and then see where it leads me to and how the results fit into where and what: Sort of working my way back. I myself am not a scientist either but I am eager to work with scientists towards this project. There are many intriguing clues to go by. Im not sure how to get ahold of certain people here whom I've found promising.
I look forward to reading more responses.

Alanood

Ebaines I didn't say that pig genomes are more closely aligned to humans than apes. I said what I said, that the only animal to human compatible transplant is from pig to human...The porcine replacement valve in open heart surgery. Im saying that it is striking how the most closest animals to humans are the pig and the chimp. Im wondering is that a coincidence and im asking if it can be scientifically researched.

What you said was this:


can we safely say that the number of gene similarities of BOTH pig & Chimp are by far the most closest to that of human?

So again - you are asking if the pig and human genomes are more closely related than any other EXCEPT human and chimp. That's what I was questioning and asked for a reference, which notably you have not yet done. You are absolutely correct that pigs are remarkably good donors for things like heart valves - why pigs are so well matched for this and not, say, dogs I can't say. It is indeed an interesting question.

I would ask that you please NOT bring topics such as whether a particular contributor is an atheist or not into this discussion. This is a science forum, and that sort of remark does not add any value. The value of one's contributions in this science forum is not determined by whether that person is a Hindu, Mormon, Baptist, Wiccan, or whatever.

Dear Tut, I appreciate your input and suggestions greatly, thank you. It would be interesting to discuss with you your personal take on theory of evolution since you are not an atheist either (perhaps a different thread?)




Hi again Alan,

Philosophy is a good place because it covers many bases.




I myself am not a scientist either but i am eager to work with scientists towards this project. There are many intriguing clues to go by. Im not sure how to get ahold of certain people here whom ive found promising.
I look forward to reading more responses.




I think you will have little trouble finding a scientist/biologist who is a theist. Where I think you will have trouble is finding said biologist who is prepared to, 'mix methodologies'.

Can't speak for all scientists of course but I think most tend to draw a line in the sand when it comes to science and religion. Scientists do their job using the relevant scientific methodologies. If they go to church then they are probably happy with the particular types of methodologies used there. Why might this be the case?

Religious beliefs use a teleological explanation. In other words, things evolved the way they have because there is a purpose behind it.(usually religious purpose).

Science on the other hand uses a functional explanation. Science does not ask what is the purpose of a pig's cloven foot. Rather it ask what function does it serve in providing an advantage to the animal in the environment?

Because we have drawn a line in the sand we have created what is know as an explanatory gap. Explanatory gaps are not that unusual in in various fields of knowledge. For example the mind/brain problem runs into an explanatory gap problem. Scientists explain consciousness in terms of the physical brain. That is consciousness is simply the firing of neurons. Consciousness is not something that exists over and above the physical process. They explain consciousness this way because the methodology demands a physical explanation. To provide a non-physical explanation is to provide a metaphysical explanation.

Exactly the same argument applies to biology. I guess we could say that biologists are not paid to do metaphysics. The upshot is that biologists will always attempt to close the explanatory gap with a physical explanation.

Yes we can explain the gap using teleology and I don't see anything wrong with this. But the important point is that in doing so we are not doing science.

In a scientific forum, it is not so much there is a" knee-jerk reaction" to such questions. It is more the case that there is nothing to discuss.

Tut

Ebaines

[quote]You are absolutely correct that pigs are remarkably good donors for things like heart valves - why pigs are so well matched for this and not, say, dogs I can't say. It is indeed an interesting question. [unquote] This is what i hope to investigate with the compelling clues i have.

[quote]I would ask that you please NOT bring topics such as whether a particular contributor is an atheist or not into this discussion. This is a science forum, and that sort of remark does not add any value. [unquote] I didn't call anyone an atheist, I generally noted that atheist science tend to be more palatable than others* Only when you asked if there was historical reference did i mention my source. Otherwise I would have preferred and still do prefer to keep to the original question, as I said, science is the only discipline who's breakthroughs flourish with individuality.

Thank you for your input.

Tu

[quote] I think you will have little trouble finding a scientist/biologist who is a theist. Where I think you will have trouble is finding said biologist who is prepared to, 'mix methodologies'.[unquote] The research I have in mind hasn't been done before (at least not that I know of yet), However in similar approaches, only a handful have done cross comparison. What i believe the miscommunication between us is because I mentioned the source of the clues which I would like researched. You rightfully pointed out that there may not be a great many scientists whom use teleological explanation, however this isn't what i was looking for. Like many things in life this would be a collaborative effort. Because the clues are most compelling.

[quote]Can't speak for all scientists of course but I think most tend to draw a line in the sand when it comes to science and religion. [unquote] There are many inspirational scientists whom refer to their form of science as creationists, or creation scientists.

To name just a few living creationist PHD holders:-
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geology
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemistry
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physics
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontology
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken *******, Biology
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentistry
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D. Th.M. M.S. Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemistry
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Plant Physiology
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G. Gallop, P.G. Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Genetics
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemistry

The rest of the list can be found here:- http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Here is a list of creation scientists who have contributed to science :- http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

Tu, I appreciate your input greatly and your sense of decorum.

This question remains open to those who have any input to share

Warm regards
Alanood

Ebaines

[quote]You are absolutely correct that pigs are remarkably good donors for things like heart valves - why pigs are so well matched for this and not, say, dogs I can't say. It is indeed an interesting question. [unquote] This is what i hope to investigate with the compelling clues i have.

[quote]I would ask that you please NOT bring topics such as whether a particular contributor is an atheist or not into this discussion. This is a science forum, and that sort of remark does not add any value. [unquote] I didn't call anyone an atheist, I generally noted that atheist science tend to be more palatable than others* Only when you asked if there was historical reference did i mention my source. Otherwise I would have preferred and still do prefer to keep to the original question, as I said, science is the only discipline who's breakthroughs flourish with individuality.

Thank you for your input.

Tu

[quote] I think you will have little trouble finding a scientist/biologist who is a theist. Where I think you will have trouble is finding said biologist who is prepared to, 'mix methodologies'.[unquote] The research I have in mind hasn't been done before (at least not that I know of yet), However in similar approaches, only a handful have done cross comparison. What i believe the miscommunication between us is because I mentioned the source of the clues which I would like researched. You rightfully pointed out that there may not be a great many scientists whom use teleological explanation, however this isn't what i was looking for. Like many things in life this would be a collaborative effort. Because the clues are most compelling.

[quote]Can't speak for all scientists of course but I think most tend to draw a line in the sand when it comes to science and religion. [unquote] There are many inspirational scientists whom refer to their form of science as creationists, or creation scientists.

To name just a few living creationist PHD holders:-
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geology
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemistry
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physics
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontology
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken *******, Biology
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentistry
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D. Th.M. M.S. Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemistry
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Plant Physiology
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G. Gallop, P.G. Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Genetics
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemistry

The rest of the list can be found here:- Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation (http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation)

Here is a list of creation scientists who have contributed to science :- A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science (http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm)

Tu, I appreciate your input greatly and your sense of decorum.

This question remains open to those who have any input to share

Warm regards
Alanood


Hi Alan,

I find that absolutely amazing. I had no idea. Even on a comparative basis we would have noting like that in Australia.

You say that some of the scientists you list have contributed to science. However, they would not have produced theories and scholarly papers that have been tensed and subject to peer review.Do you mean they contributed (strictly in a scientific manner) to their particular field and then they do their theology?

As I said earlier once you, 'mix the methodologies' main stream science will reject it.

The methodology of science sets out the procedures to be undertaken in order to test a hypothesis. The 'testing' in theology/philosophy is the choosing to a particular system of analysis and seeing how your ideas conform to that system. Mainstream science rejects this methodology strictly on the basis that it is unscientific. Which of course it is.

Tut

Tu

You still aren't getting me, no mixed methodologies, when I say collaborative effort it means that a study is taken from clues and then researched, the scientific part is strictly scientific, however its directed in a specific direction that is all, no requirement on the scientists side to look into the theology side. Where the results end up is yet to be seen. However all I've said in regards to this is that the clues are most compelling (notice that I haven't mentioned which religion and this has nothing to do with the scientific aspect of this discussion) I hope I have finally clarified this point.
As for the list of creation scientists you would need to go through each ones contribution individually. I have read one in particular who is mentioned in the list and he would definitely qualify.

My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

Tu

You still arent getting me, no mixed methodologies, when i say collaborative effort it means that a study is taken from clues and then researched, the scientific part is strictly scientific, however its directed in a specific direction that is all, no requirement on the scientists side to look into the theology side. Where the results end up is yet to be seen. However all ive said in regards to this is that the clues are most compelling (notice that i havent mentioned which religion and this has nothing to do with the scientific aspect of this discussion) I hope i have finally clarified this point.
As for the list of creation scientists you would need to go through each ones contribution individually. I have read one in particular who is mentioned in the list and he would definitely qualify.

My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

HI Alan,

Sorry but I am a bit slow on the uptake. It's probably my age. Are you saying that you are one of the contributing scientists? If you are then you are just the person I want to talk to.

You are correct. What you have put forward as a theory is scientific. Like any scientific theory it is subject to falsification. I grant you that so far your theory is scientific. However, I do stress so far.

As Karl Popper pointed out all of those years ago you cannot prove a theory with certainty but you can disprove it with certainty.

I have read some of the expositions of the scientists represented on the link. I can't say it is true for all of them but the ones I have read fall into Popper's falsification trap. How so?

These scientists rightly point out such things as the inconsistencies of the geological record, fossil record and the inadequacies of evolution when it comes to explaining the evolution of the platypus. Another scientist quite rightly points out the inadequacies of Newtonian mechanics when it comes to explaining the micro world. Newtonian mechanics cannot explain the world of the very tiny.

As I said before, all scientific theories will eventually run into an explanatory gap and a new theory needs to be developed to explain the new observations. This is actually how science progresses. I am sure you are aware of that.

As Popper found out all of those years ago applying the falsification principle to science doesn't work. In other words, falsification principles are not a tool that can be used against science.

Contributors to the website (the ones I have read) consistently want to claim that because of the inadequacies of the prevailing theories. IN other words,we have produced a number of counter examples; hence the theory must be false. What is need is a new explanation to explain the inadequacies.

Despite the fact that Popper banged his fist on the table and demanded, "falsification, falsification, falsification of scientific theories". Science wouldn't budge an inch. Why was this the case?

In the end the answer was quite obvious. The falsification principle was in fact an absolutist theory. I could outline the reasons for this if you like but basically falsification itself cannot be falsified. Science of course can be falsified. So yes, Popper was proposing a metaphysical theory.

Popper may as well have banged on the table and demanded, "absolutism, absolutism, absolutism". Or," metaphysics, metaphysics, metaphysics". It amounts to exactly the same.

In the end science ignores such claims. Not because it wants to but because it is not part of the scientific methodology.

I have this feeling that you are going to justify your observations by way of an absolutist explanation. It makes no difference as to the absolutist explanation. It can be the falsification principle or a supernatural being working his will upon the world. It makes no difference. It is still an absolutist explanation.

Once you do this you will loose the interest of mainstream science. Not necessarily because they are a society of atheists. It is more a case of losing their interest because you have switched methodologies on them midstream.

The evidence for this is that there are no serious scholarly papers of the nature you have described circulating in mainstream science. You have lost their interest.

In the end I think Creationism is a very good metaphysical theory. Unfortunately it is not a scientific theory. Besides, what's rush to jump onto the scientific bandwagon. Metaphysics is much more pleasing.

Tut

Tu


My name is Alanood (Alan is a guys name)

Hi Alanood,

My apologies I have messed that up completely. I understand what you are saying now. Your name is Alanood, not Alan.

I will address you in the correct manner in future. Sorry.

Tut