The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[orogenicman]

@ Statler Waldorf (and anyone else reading the papers he has provided):

I’d like to start this post by commending you- you are by far the hardest-working and smartest creationist I’ve come across on the internet. I have had great fun reading through the papers you’ve provided. I’ve read the first 3 you provided very well, and am still working on the others. The first one I’m going to skip for now, since it does not provide any primary research and is terribly unscientific in many ways, which we can discuss later if you like. Also, I passed over it in favor of the far better work (and to be honest, work that is way more in my wheelhouse) by your Dr. Tomkins, whom I am getting fond of. The second of his papers you provided (#3 in your links on chromosome #2 fusion, titled “Alleged Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Site…” ) is absolutely and unremittingly terrible. I’d be tempted to say it’s the work of an idiot, but on reading 2 of his papers well, and another 2 glancingly, he does know what he’s talking about, so I can only conclude it’s an attempt to convince those who don’t know much about genetics anyway. It just has to be deliberate lies, it’s so bad. We can get into it, if you like, but see below first.

But… the first of Tomkins’ papers (your link #2, titled “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes..”) you linked is worth some attention. It’s not bad work at all, and it raises some critical questions- ones that evolutionary biologists have asked as well. So I’m going to suggest that you, and anyone else interested, read this paper carefully, because unless you do, there’s no point in discussing it. This is my choice for the “AF Journal Club” paper, because it’s the best one you provided.

I WILL retract my earlier comment that no creationists are doing current primary bench research that directly supports creationist ideas. This paper was published this year, it used current in silico technology, it directly addressed a current, interesting, open, and useful question (although it did make it look as if it was not an open question in evolutionary genetics- not honest), and it provided data to answer that question. If that admission is what you wanted from me, then you’ve got it, along with my kudos for being better- and smarter- than many of your peers. If you’d like to actually look (I’ll [sic] myself here for a split infinitive) at the quality of the work you provided, read on.

There are a number of significant problems with Tomkins’ paper. I’d like to discuss them once you’ve read it. Things to think about (sort of a "reader's guide" to the paper):

1.)What does Tomkins claim about why his paper is more comprehensive than others’ work? How does this lead to his numbers, and how does his “open-mindedness” about his search parameters lead to this? Is this a reasonable way to approach comparative genomics?

2.)What does he compare his numbers to? If I say that I am 70% as likely to enjoy vanilla coffee as another demographic, is that a high number, or a low number? How would you know? What work could you- SHOULD YOU- do to “nest” that information within a framework of comparability?

3.)What do you (or Tomkins) know about the current debate about the value of BLAST searches and E-values as a useful tool of evolutionary comparison?

4.)Who is responsible for the widespread “98.5% homology” number that Tomkins scorns, and what are the ways the public and the scientific community might see that number differently? How did anyone arrive at that number if it’s so wrong? Are there other methods of research that might be useful to consider in discovering a percent homology? Is percent homology even a useful metric? How and why?

These questions should at least get us started on thinking about how good this research is.

**EDIT- C'mon, AF members! This is a great exercise in learning about scientific research, the mysteries of the genomes, and the debate we are always having! S-W ponied up, so let's see some involvement! My questions above are open for ANYONE to think about, answer, research, or ask questions about!

Well, since you brought it up, I have to ask, how is it possible that you, a molecular geneticist, can, with a straight face, claim fondness for Tomkins' work, declaring that "he does know what he’s talking about", and yet in nearly in the same sentence call his work "terribly unscientific", "absolutely and unremittingly terrible" and "not honest"?