Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Hockeycowboy]

It is evidence for phylogeny. There is no arguing that. That you will not let yourself understand the concept of evidence causes you to make rather basic errors.

By definition there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. Are you not at least curious as to why that is the case? The fact that there is no reliable evidence for creationism is why your side continually loses court cases.

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.
And with regard to court cases...there’s a reason why government institutions support restrictions on (what has) religious connotations being taught in public schools, another government entity. It’s not that hard to figure out, that separation of religion from state, plays a factor.
But then, as Judge Jones indirectly implied, science is not interested in finding truth. Only whatever supports naturalism, I.e., what can be detected and measured.

Then answer the question.

Honestly, I don’t know other than similarities of genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, You are wrong....
Scientists Map Acorn Worm DNA, And Learn A Lot About Humans In The Process | HuffPost

Support your statements with sources.

Lol.

Nope not wrong. Support your claim with proper sources. Here is a hint, there are different ways to measure similarity. You need to be able to show that the same standard is used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.
And with regard to court cases...there’s a reason why government institutions support restrictions on (what has) religious connotations being taught in public schools, another government entity. It’s not that hard to figure out, that separation of religion from state, plays a factor.
But then, as Judge Jones indirectly implied, science is not interested in finding truth. Only whatever supports naturalism, I.e., what can be detected and measured.


Honestly, I don’t know other than similarities of genes.

Why must you constantly make false claims about others? Remember, quoting our of context is almost always a lie.

Try again.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here is a hint, there are different ways to measure similarity

No kidding, Sherlock.

But you’re not following the conversation....it was ‘based on the parameters’ of genetic similarity.

Grief, you even quoted it!

We weren’t discussing “different ways”, just gene similarity.

 

[Jose Fly]

Honestly, I don’t know other than similarities of genes.

I appreciate you being honest.

It does however raise a broader point. Earlier, you said something along the lines of "it's not like the fossils have dna" as a counter to someone citing the fossil record. Doesn't that imply that you agree genetic testing is a valid means to determine relatedness? If not, then what was the point of your counter argument?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I appreciate you being honest.

It does however raise a broader point. Earlier, you said something along the lines of "it's not like the fossils have dna" as a counter to someone citing the fossil record. Doesn't that imply that you agree genetic testing is a valid means to determine relatedness? If not, then what was the point of your counter argument?

Yes...up to a certain level. Maybe even up to Family taxa, changes between Genera within each Family taxon.

But with extinct organisms in the fossil record, there is no ability to id genes. The point is moot, to talk about genetic variations in fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No kidding, Sherlock.

But you’re not following the conversation....it was ‘based on the parameters’ of genetic similarity.

Grief, you even quoted it!

We weren’t discussing “different ways”, just gene similarity.

Oh my, you say that I am right and then repeat your error.

Let me explain something to you, if they had used the same methodologies and got the results that the worm in the article is more closely related to us than chickens your idiot creationist friends at AiG and other dishonest sites would be shouting this to the heavens. The ones that work there know enough to realize that different methodologies were used. Your error is like comparing a temperature in Fahrenheit to Celsius and saying that 70 F is clearly twice as hot as 35 C.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meanwhile here is a link to the Nature article that the Huff post article was based upon. I cannot see where they get that 70% similarity figure. If there are any biologists that understand this topic perhaps they can find it. I know that I can't:

Hemichordate genomes and deuterostome origins

When it comes to science, especially harder to understand science, the popular press is wrong far more often than not when it comes to the details.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.

It's kind of forced to do so...As is any rational person
You see, it's kind of impossible to take into account the unmeasureable and the undetectable...

A wise man once said: "the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike".

And with regard to court cases...there’s a reason why government institutions support restrictions on (what has) religious connotations being taught in public schools, another government entity. It’s not that hard to figure out, that separation of religion from state, plays a factor.
But then, as Judge Jones indirectly implied, science is not interested in finding truth. Only whatever supports naturalism, I.e., what can be detected and measured.

How do you identify truth, if you can't test the claims against commonly observable reality?
And how can you test claims against commonly observable reality, if the claims are about the undetectable and the unmeasurable.

For example, here's a claim: An undetectable dragon is following you around everywhere you go.

Please explain how you would go about determining the truth value of that statement?
Because I wouldn't know.

Honestly, I don’t know other than similarities of genes.

Which is strange since so many people, myself included, surely explained to you already multiple times how it's not about mere similarities but rather about the pattern of similarities? Nested hierarchies? Does it ring a bell? No?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.
And with regard to court cases...there’s a reason why government institutions support restrictions on (what has) religious connotations being taught in public schools, another government entity. It’s not that hard to figure out, that separation of religion from state, plays a factor.
But then, as Judge Jones indirectly implied, science is not interested in finding truth. Only whatever supports naturalism, I.e., what can be detected and measured.


Honestly, I don’t know other than similarities of genes.

Um yeah, of course. How can anybody analyze or glean any information whatsoever about something which is undetectable and immeasurable? How would we even know that thing existed in the first place, if it's undetectable and immeasurable?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes...up to a certain level. Maybe even up to Family taxa, changes between Genera within each Family taxon.

It's a little odd to see you say that, since earlier you acknowledged that you don't really know much about the science behind genetic testing. You see the point? If you don't know much about how genetic testing works, how can you speak to its limitations?

Or perhaps what you said above is more a reflection of what you're willing to accept, rather than a result of what you know?

 

[ecco]

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.

There are many origin stories. Let's take three:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.

Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are many origin stories. Let's take three:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.

Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

You forgot one:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

 

[gnostic]

Science limits itself, with its own definition, by excluding from consideration what it can’t detect and measure.

And that’s a bad thing?

Evidence have to be detectable, measurable and testable. That how you can determine what are objectively true and what are objectively false. Evidence, in science, eg scientific method, are all about able to refute (or test) the evidence, and more evidence you have, then you can verify to reach a conclusion based on your analysis of the evidence.

Subjective search for the truth, is nothing more than personal opinions or views, personal belief and faith, and these are often subjected to biases.

If you cannot detect, measure or test the evidence, then it isn’t evidence.

By limiting what can be used and how to use evidence, make science better than philosophies, better than religious teaching and dogma.

Limits are not a bad thing.

How would you test Ezekiel 1 to be true?

Do you remember the four angels or living creatures, each ones of them have with four wings, and head with four faces? And each one, has a face of lion, ox, eagle and man. Believable or not?

Other than faith in a belief, there are nothing to determine what is real and true and what are imaginary and false. All you have, is a disposition that you have already made up your mind that such beings exist. With no limits, then you might as well as believe in winged fairies or pixies, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

How about the two-faced Roman god Janus, or the two-faced Quirinus Quirrell/Voldemort? You might as well as think these are real like Ezekiel’s 4-faced angels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You forgot one:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

or 5: everything was created last thursday by the undetectable cookie monster

My 5 seems to have the exact same merrit then your 4

 

[ecco]

There are many origin stories. Let's take three:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.

Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

You forgot one:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

OK...

There are many origin stories. Let's take three four:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

I've included your option. Now...
Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

 

[ecco]

or 5: everything was created last thursday by the undetectable cookie monster

My 5 seems to have the exact same merrit then your 4

Did you miss my #2?

 

[tas8831]

Yes...up to a certain level. Maybe even up to Family taxa, changes between Genera within each Family taxon.

But with extinct organisms in the fossil record, there is no ability to id genes. The point is moot, to talk about genetic variations in fossils.

There is no need to id genes in fossil taxa in order to assess the shared ancestry of extant taxa.

Do you have 3rd or 4th cousins? Do you have DNA from your last common ancestors? I sort of doubt it.

 

[tas8831]

You forgot one:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

You forgot to supply any evidence for that fantastic and extraordinary claim.
Surely you will not rely entirely on a fallacious false dichotomy based on a strawman of sorts?

 

[tas8831]

Yes...up to a certain level. Maybe even up to Family taxa, changes between Genera within each Family taxon.

So you admit that macroevolution happens. Cool.