Independent Lens "Independent Lens: T...

Independent Lens "Independent Lens: The Revisionaries"

There are 49 comments on the Wyoming PBS Welcome! story from Jan 27, 2013, titled Independent Lens "Independent Lens: The Revisionaries". In it, Wyoming PBS Welcome! reports that:

Witness an ongoing culture war raging in Texas -- a tempest in a textbook. The state's Board of Education has been engaged in a pitched, years-long battle over what belongs in public school textbooks.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wyoming PBS Welcome!.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1 Jan 28, 2013
People have the to right to be stupid if they so choose... they do NOT have the right to force that stupidity on children in the Pubic School System! Teach your children your religious views at your church of choice and in your home, leave the Public Schools to teach them something useful!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2 Feb 3, 2013
What's the value in teaching children that they're related to oak trees?
http://assessment.aaas.org/items/EN046007#/0

Frankly, I think it's much more important to teach children that the myths produced by the gods of evolution are expected to be believed but that even these gods, which teach that there is a 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA, don't know (and are unable to specify) the mathematical formula that gives the percent similarity between two distinct strings that consist exclusively of the letters A, T, C, and G.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3 Feb 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
What's the value in teaching children that they're related to oak trees?
http://assessment.aaas.org/items/EN046007#/0
Because it's correct.
Shubee wrote:
Frankly, I think it's much more important to teach children that the myths produced by the gods of evolution are expected to be believed but that even these gods, which teach that there is a 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA, don't know (and are unable to specify) the mathematical formula that gives the percent similarity between two distinct strings that consist exclusively of the letters A, T, C, and G.
There is no complex formula, it's a simple base-by-base comparison. Approximately 98% of chimp DNA is shared with humans. Although since your non-testable "scientific alternative" is magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms you have no cause from which to discuss DNA in the first place, since any kind of ancestry even between parents and their offspring is rendered utterly moot.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#4 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's correct.
<quoted text>
There is no complex formula, it's a simple base-by-base comparison. Approximately 98% of chimp DNA is shared with humans.
What is the meaning of a simple base-by-base comparison? I am asking for an algorithm. For example, what is a base by base comparison of the following two strings and what is their percent similarity:

ATGATGCAAGCT
TGTACCTGAACTA

?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#5 Feb 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What is the meaning of a simple base-by-base comparison? I am asking for an algorithm. For example, what is a base by base comparison of the following two strings and what is their percent similarity:
ATGATGCAAGCT
TGTACCTGAACTA
?
In this example sample 1 has 12 bases and sample 2 has 13. First we can isolate the sequences shared by both samples. We can see that these are:

TG A TG AA CT - a total of 9 bases.

Then it's simply a matter of calculating the percentages this takes up of both samples. Sample 1 has 12 bases so it makes up 75% of sample 1. 100 divided by 12, times 9. Therefore sample 1 shares 75% of its makeup with sample 2. Sample 2 has 13 bases so it makes up 69.23% of sample 2 rounded off to two decimal places. 100 divided by 13, times 9. Therefore sample 2 shares 69.23% of its makeup with sample 1.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6 Feb 3, 2013
OK. I think I picked too simple an example to see what the general algorithm is, so let me pick two other strings:

ATGCATGC

CGTACGTA

Again: what is the base by base comparison of these two strings and what is their percent similarity?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#7 Feb 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
OK. I think I picked too simple an example to see what the general algorithm is, so let me pick two other strings:
ATGCATGC
CGTACGTA
Again: what is the base by base comparison of these two strings and what is their percent similarity?
In this example sample 1 and 2 both have 8 bases. First we can isolate the sequences shared by both samples. We can see that these are:

G A T

Then it's simply a matter of calculating the percentages this takes up of both samples. Sample 1 and 2 both have 8 bases so it makes up 24% of both sample 1 and 2. 100 divided by 12.5, times 3. Therefore sample 1 shares 24% of its makeup with sample 2 and vice versa. This calculation is correct if each example is analogous to a complete organism. If each sample merely analogous to a small portion of an organism's genome then it's an inversion. In which case percentage similarity is 100%, just in reverse.

Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms, including the determination of separation into multiple lines of presumed common ancestry into all the "known Biblical kinds", including observations of matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#8 Feb 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
ATGCATGC
CGTACGTA
Again: what is the base by base comparison of these two strings and what is their percent similarity?
The Dude wrote:
In this example sample 1 and 2 both have 8 bases. First we can isolate the sequences shared by both samples. We can see that these are:
G A T
Why not CAT, TGT, CTG, CGC, AGT, TCA, ACG, ACT, ACA, TGA, or CTC, etc?
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#9 Feb 4, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Why not CAT, TGT, CTG, CGC, AGT, TCA, ACG, ACT, ACA, TGA, or CTC, etc?
Are you too stupid to even understand what the words "compare to each other" means?

If I were to give you two red colored swatches and asked you to "compare the two to each other" to make sure that the production swatch matched the prototype swatch, what mathematical algoritm would you come up with to do this for you?

If I were to give you a piece of paper with a house number on it along with a package to deliver on a certain street, what mathematical algorithm would you come up to find the house for you?

If I were to tell you a phone number to put into your cell phone and asked you to recite it back so that I knew you got it correct, what mathematical algorithm would you come up with to compare the phone number I gave you with the one you entered in your phone?

Sometimes the research and empirical evidence merely requires using your eyes and thinking a little.

Of course, we all know that you have issues with the "thinking" part of that.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#10 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Therefore sample 1 shares 24% of its makeup with sample 2 and vice versa. This calculation is correct if each example is analogous to a complete organism.
But what if the entire DNA for a complete organism is written backwards?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#11 Feb 4, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Why not CAT, TGT, CTG, CGC, AGT, TCA, ACG, ACT, ACA, TGA, or CTC, etc?
Because those sequences are not present. In both samples the G is followed by an A then a T, the A is preceded by a G and followed by a T, the T is preceded by a G then an A.

Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms, including the determination of separation into multiple lines of presumed common ancestry into all the "known Biblical kinds", including observations of matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#12 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because those sequences are not present.
Of course all those sequences are present.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13 Feb 4, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>But what if the entire DNA for a complete organism is written backwards?
What if it is?(shrug) I've already answered that question here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TQO...

I'm not an expert geneticist, but my guess is that identical twins, who are a mirror image of each other (and who share identical genomes), do not have mirror image genomes with one of them being in precise reverse order respective to the other. Therefore you'll likely end up with a much lower percentage similarity as a whole, as I've demonstrated above. So if the "reversed" genome is still viable you'll end up with a very different organism. Of course considering the countless possible combinations of bases (also of varying sizes - the human genome is around 3 billion bases, some organisms much smaller, some can be twice as long) the possibility of coming across an identical genome but precisely in reverse would be highly unlikely.

Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms, including the determination of separation into multiple lines of presumed common ancestry into all the "known Biblical kinds", including observations of matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms,
There is nothing magical about the laws of physics. And it's not a mathematical formula. But there is a mathematical proof.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/quantumcre...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#15 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
I've already answered that question
So which is it, 24% or 100%?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#16 Feb 4, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Of course all those sequences are present.
But separated. The sequences G, A and T where the only ones that matched in that same order in a linear sequence from base 1 to base 8. Like I said, the order matters, and it doesn't help these samples being an unrealistic size of only 8 bases. So if the other sequences you described are to be valid then there must be more to the genomes to put these into context. Therefore we may or may not end up with completely different percentages. This would mean that there are more mutations and/or insertions between those sequences you mentioned meaning further genetic drift, and that's even assuming that these partial sequences are anywhere close to each other's position along the length of the genome. But as it is I can only go on what's presented and assume that both genomes are the same size and only 8 bases.

Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms, including the determination of separation into multiple lines of presumed common ancestry into all the "known Biblical kinds", including observations of matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There is nothing magical about the laws of physics. And it's not a mathematical formula. But there is a mathematical proof.
I understand your concept behind the "math", however you refuse to calculate the probabilities of an insane amount of extremely low probability events, compared to that of say quantum fluctations that produce particle/anti-particle pairs in a vacuum. While these ARE EXTREMELY LOW probability events, they HAVE been observed, and the probabilities also take into account the size of the entire universe. You on the other hand are talking about a series of low probability events producing all the particles necessary to produce not only just a fully-formed hippopotamus, but also every single living species that's ever existed on this planet. And what's more, you're restricting all those extremely low probability events to planet Earth. And what's more, you have zero evidence.

But then the disingenuous part is that your quantum events are not really quantum events at all, as they are all ultimately caused (somehow) by the will of God. Hence your "math" is really nothing more than rather pathetic apologetics to justify invisible Jewish magic wizardry. Ergo based on probabilities alone, natural chemical abiogenesis is far more reasonable, and on top of that is supported by the evidence.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
The sequences G, A and T where the only ones that matched in that same order in a linear sequence from base 1 to base 8.
CAT, TGT, CTG, CGC, AGT, TCA, ACG, ACT, ACA, TGA, and CTC all match in the same linear order from base 1 to base 8.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms,
The first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism doesn't require specifying any particular mathematical model of quantum mechanics. It only requires its existence under very general conditions.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#19 Feb 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Again: what is the mathematical formula for ... matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?
That depends. What are the matching nested hierarchies in the following two strings?

ATGCATGC

CGTACGTA
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Feb 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
CAT, TGT, CTG, CGC, AGT, TCA, ACG, ACT, ACA, TGA, and CTC all match in the same linear order from base 1 to base 8.
My mistake, you were correct in this instance. The answer is still the same: 24%.
Shubee wrote:
The first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism doesn't require specifying any particular mathematical model of quantum mechanics. It only requires its existence under very general conditions.
Yes, in general that the Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so, thus making quantum physics, and indeed any and all evidence as a whole, totally and utterly superfluous.
Shubee wrote:
That depends. What are the matching nested hierarchies in the following two strings?
This senseless question debunks itself. As an expert in biology you already know this.

Again: what is the mathematical formula for magical poofing of complete fully-grown biological organisms, including the determination of separation into multiple lines of presumed common ancestry into all the "known Biblical kinds", including observations of matching nested hierachies across comparative anatomy, homology, DNA, and orthologous endogenous retro-viruses?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Science 1,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Dogen 78,757
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Science 32,460
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Science 222,264
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Science 163,059
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web