Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you suggesting that the computers used to construct such trees use ‘imagination’?

Yes, the programmers. Garbage in, garbage out.....

 

[Kaon]

Oh don't I know. Some of those with the strongest faith on here claim to have no faith at all but are merely practicing science. Not realizing they have simply inserted the "word" science into their doctrine of faith to protect their fragile ego's.

That's why you notice in almost every post they find it necessary to participate in ad-hominem attacks of one sort or another. An attempt to salvage their ego and inflate themselves above others.... They equate this with meaning they have won the argument, when it reality it shows they lost it and need to resort to such to salvage that damaged ego.

Dare I say that it is the same thing religious folks do when they don't really know the Word of God: attack and attempt to save face (of self, and the idols)?

Academia and organized, institutional religion have the same structure, which is why the psychology is so similar to religious people, and why, therefore, they clash so often.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dare I say that it is the same thing religious folks do when they don't really know the Word of God: attack and attempt to save face (of self, and the idols)?

Academia and organized, institutional religion have the same structure, which is why the psychology is so similar to religious people, and why, therefore, they clash so often.

Oh agreed. Zealots of all religions (even ones that call themselves science) are the same. Closed to new ideas.

 

[Brightmoon]

Justa if you don’t understand science just say so. It’s obvious to everyone that you don’t . Kaon, science is a tool to figure out how nature works ,period . When religious leaders pull stuff out of their behinds and claim that it’s scientific they deserve to be chewed up and spit out not emulated

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, the programmers. Garbage in, garbage out.....

I believe data is the word you’re looking for.

Didn’t you post a canine phylogenetic tree earlier? I thought you were satisfied that it was accurate?

How was it constructed?

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh agreed. Zealots of all religions (even ones that call themselves science) are the same. Closed to new ideas.

.
thoroughly Refuted ideas are a waste of time to look back at. Noah’s impossible flood was disproved back in the 1700s and the level of refutation has only gotten higher through the last centuries . Humans just didn’t blink into existence they evolved from earlier species over a long period of time.

Goo to zoo to you ? It’s true!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa if you don’t understand science just say so. It’s obvious to everyone that you don’t . Kaon, science is a tool to figure out how nature works ,period . When religious leaders pull stuff out of their behinds and claim that it’s scientific they deserve to be chewed up and spit out not emulated

See post #119 for your answer.... As predicted, the par for course ad-hominem attack. Glad to know your at the point where your ego is feeling damaged and you need to attempt to salvage it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe data is the word you’re looking for.

Didn’t you post a canine phylogenetic trees earlier? I thought you were satisfied that it was accurate?

How was it constructed?

By the researchers understanding they were all the same species... Correct info in, correct info out....

 

[Jimmy D]

By the researchers understanding they were all the same species... Correct info in, correct info out....

I asked how.

Did they not use similar methods to the trees you claim are garbage?

edit: sorry I misread your post, I’ve now edited my response

 

[Brightmoon]

That’s funny Justa as I’m not the one clutching at straws . As I’ve stated before genetics fills in the so called gaps in the fossil record. The easiest way to do that is to look at something so crucial to survival that it’s impossible to have it evolve much . Ribosomal DNA as without that individual cells can’t do anything except die. Or the shared ancestry derived from shared DNA like with the Hox genes and other major body plan genes in Bilateria ( organisms with a head , tail and a left and right sides during some phase of development - everything from worms to humans) . It’s you and other creationists who won’t admit that you’re simply wrong

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I asked how, not who.

Did they not use similar methods to the trees you claim are garbage?

No, their programming started with the knowledge they were all the same species. It is who, in every single case. The programming is given statistical weight by the parameters the programmer decides what to weight it for.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, their programming started with the knowledge they were all the same species. It is who, in every single case. The programming is given statistical weight by the parameters the programmer decides what to weight it for.

How do the parameters differ?

It sounds like you are making vague excuses, and that you will only accept data that reinforces your preconceptions. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Unless you can point out specific errors in the construction of such trees I’m afraid I’ll have to go with the scientific consensus and disregard your unsubstantiated objections as hot air.

 

[Brightmoon]

They use DNA tests to determine the baby daddy and they also use them to determine common descent . The common descent tests are more sophisticated.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do the parameters differ?

It sounds like you are making vague excuses, and that you will only accept data that reinforces your preconceptions. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Unless you can point out specific errors in the construction of such trees I’m afraid I’ll have to go with the scientific consensus and disregard your unsubstantiated objections as hot air.

Let's see, knowing they are the same species you weight the statistics to give you a tree of direct lineage.

Believing they are separate species you list the different stages as being separate species.

One shows a direct lineage chart with no gaps or missing common ancestors. Just the realization that change of form ism often dramatic.

The other shows gaps, where none actually exist, because ancestors that never existed are needed to explain the gap in variation between forms when no gap actually existed because they were never separate species.

Had they started with the assumption that dogs were separate species, the same missing common ancestors to bridge the non-existent gaps would have had to be inserted.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They use DNA tests to determine the baby daddy and they also use them to determine common descent . The common descent tests are more sophisticated.

The common descent tests are based upon false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.

"However, somewhat paradoxically, the very process of building phylogenies with molecules revealed the extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and thereby threatened the TOL concept in regard to its core ideas of a unique ever-bifurcating branching pattern. "

I'd explain that to you, but it wouldn't do any good.

or "“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life, by showing that evolutionary trajectories of individual genes are irreconcilably different."

Know I know you prefer the PR hype That they all point towards a common ancestor instead of the truth, but that's no excuse.

 

[pitabread]

No, their programming started with the knowledge they were all the same species. It is who, in every single case. The programming is given statistical weight by the parameters the programmer decides what to weight it for.

This is just gobbly-gook.

Phylogenetic algorithms don't care whether the DNA sequences used are the same species are not.

 

[pitabread]

How do the parameters differ?

It sounds like you are making vague excuses, and that you will only accept data that reinforces your preconceptions. Classic cognitive dissonance.

What he is writing sounds like something you'd expect from Star Trek-type technobabble. It's a smattering of technical terminology mixed with gibberish.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is just gobbly-gook.

Phylogenetic algorithms don't care whether the DNA sequences used are the same species are not.

Not if the data is entered correctly, that's why they don't point to an ever-bifurcating branching tree of life but instead point to cross-contamination by HGT and individual gene trajectories that are irreconcilably different.

But before the data was entered correctly, it showed a ever-bifurcating branching pattern because half the data about HGT was ignored during the first decades of genomic research.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What he is writing sounds like something you'd expect from Star Trek-type technobabble. It's a smattering of technical terminology mixed with gibberish.

Hmm, and yet you cant even do that, just make ad-hominem attacks. See post #119.

As a matter of fact that's all your posts amount to.

 

[pitabread]

Not if the data is entered correctly, that's why they don't point to an ever-bifurcating branching tree of life but instead point to cross-contamination by HGT and individual gene trajectories that are irreconcilably different.

But before the data was entered correctly, it showed a ever-bifurcating branching pattern because half the data about HGT was ignored during the first decades of genomic research.....

The data is DNA sequences. How does one not enter a DNA sequence "correctly"?