the self replicating watch argument

[drjean]

Genes are organic compounds. Whether one considers them "digital" or not is highly dependent on how one applies the definition of digital and even if it does apply.

Furthermore, even if one applies that definition of "digital" to genes or the genome, it doesn't immediately mean that the source is intelligent.

The links and data connected to my post, which obviously were not read, says that scientists disagree with those statements..

Just so you're up front about your position--it's about your interpretation of scripture, not about theism versus atheism.

My arguments are valid and to address them as having some nebulous ulterior motive is not the way posting works here.

God has scientific facts in His Word just for people who need science to believe and receive salvation.

Facts such as:

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.


Science found Job's "hole" ... 2007 The word: The Boötes Void and even larger void.. 2015 The word: The Boötes Void


“He suspends the earth over nothing”. Ironically many nations believed with great conviction the exact opposite. Nothing on this earth just floats. Everything, other than the clouds themselves, are situated on some surface. As a result, naturally, ancient peoples were confident that the earth had to be suspended on something.

Some believed the earth was sitting on the back of a turtle and that that turtle was standing on a serpent. Some believed a man was holding the earth, the great Atlas himself. Still others believed the world was flat, surrounded by a dome from which the stars were hanging on strings. These are three interpretations of many.

The book of Job in the Bible has been carbon-dated as the oldest book of the Bible: 3500 years old.

By far, God’s Word preceded mankind’s understanding.

 

[pitabread]

so pitabread claim about 14 characteristics as evidence against my cars tree is incorrect too

I think we need to clarify a couple things here.

First, you've never constructed a phylogenetic tree. Rather, you posted claims about artificial objects sorting themselves into a hierarchy similar to a phylogenetic tree. This included the suggestion that cars, vans and trucks would sort themselves accordingly.

The problem is you never bothered to test this claim yourself. (Drawing made-up trees in Paint doesn't count.)

And since you didn't have any inclination to test your own claim and I was a little curious, I decided to see what would happen if one did create a phylogenetic tree based on vehicles. So I downloaded Mesquite (free phylogenetics software), picked a bunch of vehicles and characteristics at random, then proceeded to create a data set and subsequent trees.

My results were thus:

1) Vehicles didn't sort themselves into the perfect categories you claimed. In fact, there is a lot of overlap between different vehicle types. Depending on the characteristics used, there tends to be more of a general mix rather than discrete groupings.

2) Creating trees from independent sets of characteristics didn't result in statistically convergent trees.​

I'm not suggesting that my experiment with this is the be-all-and-end-all of analysis in this regard. But it's been the only attempt thus far. You could test this out yourself. The software is free and you can use whatever vehicles and data you want. So far you haven't bothered and instead keep engaging in rhetorical arguments.

Thus, the point remains. You made claims about creating phylogenetic trees based on vehicles. I tested those claims and didn't get the results you said I should. Ergo, until otherwise demonstrated, your claims appear incorrect.

 

[pitabread]

The links and data connected to my post, which obviously were not read, says that scientists disagree with those statements..

Sure, there are a handful of ID proponents that might disagree. So?

(I should also note I'm quite familiar with traditional ID arguments having read works by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc, previously. However, to the best of my knowledge the entirety of the ID movement has never come up with a reliable methodology for detecting artificial design in biology. And indeed having read a lot of ID literature, they're a bit all over the map in terms of where artificial design ends and natural evolution begins. That the ID movement was hijacked by creationists for their own purposes didn't help matters either.)

 

[drjean]

Okay I'll give one last post on this because it's not about science any more...it's about you and your beliefs. (And the others who seem to only wish to argue, not learn or study new things.)

Your faith is not in God nor is it in science from what you post. You are educated, one way or another, and do not appear to be able to grasp the facts of truth. It is your choice...but believers are warned to beware of those "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth"... and "professing to be wise they became fools." I will pray that you are open to God's wooing and put your faith in Him rather than to the "science" you cling. He has laid it all out in His Word, whatever you doubt, but you will not understand it until you allow the Holy Spirit to give you such knowledge through accepting God's love for you. Just accept His love. What's so hard about that? Peace.

 

[pitabread]

(I'm assuming the above post was directed at me. Without quoting the originating post, I can't be sure.)

(And the others who seem to only wish to argue, not learn or study new things.)

It's a C/E forum. Everyone is here to argue.

I will pray that you are open to God's wooing and put your faith in Him rather than to the "science" you cling. He has laid it all out in His Word, whatever you doubt, but you will not understand it until you allow the Holy Spirit to give you such knowledge through accepting God's love for you. Just accept His love. What's so hard about that?

a) I've lost count of the amount of times I've been preached at on this forum. You're not saying anything I haven't heard a hundred times previously. And quite frankly, I find the whole notion of trying to "convert" people distasteful. I don't expect you to adopt my beliefs, and I don't see why you should expect me to adopt yours.

b) There have been thousands of spiritual/religious beliefs throughout history. Having done an informal study of comparative religions through history, I have no reason to think any individual belief is any more valid than any others.

c) If there really was an omnipotent deity that desired my belief/obedience/etc, they'd know what it would take to convince me of that.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay I'll give one last post on this because it's not about science any more...it's about you and your beliefs. (And the others who seem to only wish to argue, not learn or study new things.)

Your faith is not in God nor is it in science from what you post. You are educated, one way or another, and do not appear to be able to grasp the facts of truth. It is your choice...but believers are warned to beware of those "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth"... and "professing to be wise they became fools." I will pray that you are open to God's wooing and put your faith in Him rather than to the "science" you cling. He has laid it all out in His Word, whatever you doubt, but you will not understand it until you allow the Holy Spirit to give you such knowledge through accepting God's love for you. Just accept His love. What's so hard about that? Peace.

Leave us with an insult? A fine evangelist you are, telling a fellow Christian he does not believe in God.

 

[pitabread]

fine. here is a case with about 33 characteristics which contradict the current phylogeny:

Gene Study Shows Turtles Are Next Of Kin To Crocodiles And Alligators

Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges"

and if conclude that 14 characteristics is enough to conclude that there is no statistical significance, then its also true for those creatures.

Missed this post earlier.

Anyway, a few things:

1) The article you cited is almost 20 years old. So it's not talking about the "current" phylogeny anymore.

2) Pretty sure we've already had similar conversations before about other findings in biology. The thing to remember is the phylogenetic reconstruction, like much of biology, tends to be a bit messy and biologists are continually working to create clearer pictures of phylogenies. Discordance between morphology and genetics isn't a new thing (again, this is a ~20 year old article) and this isn't the only example of phylogenies being rewritten due to newer findings.

3) That particular article doesn't mention anything regarding statistical significance and the respective trees in question.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Much blessing to you, as we strive to know Christ in all reality and truth. Lord bless!

Much love in Christ

A rather odd way to address a follower of Judaism, yes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so pitabread claim about 14 characteristics as evidence against my cars tree is incorrect too since even 24 genes arent enough to make the correct tree, or that morphological tree contradict the genetic one.

You seem to be referring back to the turtle/croc/dino nodes, where it has already been acknowledged that the order of these two nodes is in question.That was explained to you multiple times.

The fact that the order of two nodes is in question does not dispute the order of thousands that have been overwhelmingly confirmed.

The fact that there is a question about which of two nodes in the distant past came first should not be a surprise. After all, for large trees, there can be a trillion, trillion, trillion possible combinations of those nodes. If we can narrow it down to one of two possibilities out of a trillion, trillion, trillion options, that is pretty good.

 

[doubtingmerle]

thanks. the same with my cars example. some traits fit with tree A and some with tree B.

No it is not the same thing. With turtles it is the order of two nodes that is in question. The rest is well established. With your tree, as soon as you split it up into a significant number of taxa, the entire tree loses all statistical significance.

 

[Not me]

A rather odd way to address a follower of Judaism, yes?

No, not if you know all the facts.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, not if you know all the facts.

Much love in Christ, Not me

I see.

And much blessing to you, as you strive to know Thor in all reality and truth. Thor bless!

 

[Not me]

I see.

And much blessing to you, as you strive to know Thor in all reality and truth. Thor bless!

Jesus loves you.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[doubtingmerle]

its true. but again its also true for creatures. about 1/3 of gorila genome give us a different tree. means many genes dont support the phylogenetic tree. now you will say that about 70% do support the tree but its the same with bicylce compare to a truck. most parts of a bicylce are more similar to another bicylce then to those of a truck.

You posted this before and it was answered. Why repeat it? See Is it a hoax?

As was explained to you, this is expected.

If our ancient ancestor carried chromosome A and B for years, and the gorilla broke off the line with the chromosome A while the other line continued with both A and B, then it would be possible for chimps to break off later with B and humans with A. Although humans are closer to chimps, in this locus they are closer to gorillas as they both have A. This happens all the time.

In fact, there is one chromosome that I have that is closer to many gorillas than it is to the chromosome my sister has at that location! How can that be? It turns out that I got my dad's y chromosome at one spot, while she got his x. My y is closer to male gorilla y than it is to her x . My y and her x split hundreds of millions of years ago, while my y split from the gorilla y several million years ago.

Again, we are not looking for 100% match, but looking for statistical significance. Animals trees have it. Cars don't.

 

[dad]

There we have it. Creation was magic.

As far as science goes. Anything out of the present nature fishbowl is greek to them.

 

[drjean]

Leave us with an insult? A fine evangelist you are, telling a fellow Christian he does not believe in God.

Not sure why you consider my posting to the agnostics and atheists posting in this thread applies to you as well, but if the shoe fits, wear it (or buy it in every color-your choice).

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure why you consider my posting to the agnostics and atheists posting in this thread applies to you as well, but if the shoe fits, wear it (or buy it in every color-your choice).

It was a general post; atheists and agnostics were not specified. Further, it is a common theme of creationists that unless one believes in YECism one cannot believe in God. I just wanted to find out if you were playing that game.

 

[DogmaHunter]

thanks. the same with my cars example. some traits fit with tree A and some with tree B.

No. Your example of car relationships, is invented out of thin air.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am assuming (hopefully correct) that this is an argument for Creation Science and thus the naysayers are proponents of Darwinism?

There's no such thing as "creation science".

I agree that evolution is not falsifiable because it is not a true theory!

You are wrong.

Irreducible complexity. DNA.

PRATT

Great example of creationist dishonesty and how they cut and edit clips with actual scientists to make it seem as if they agree with creationists or similar.

In this particular case:
- first dawkins was lied to about the purpose of the interview. He was told it concerned an education program about science. It turned out to be religious creationist propaganda
- he was asked to bend over backwards and imagine a world where we discovered that life on earth does NOT have a natural origin. Then he was asked to hypothesize how life then would have made it to the planet. Both the question and the answer was then edited in such a way to make it seems as if Dawkins actually consider it a valid hypothesis.

It is lie, after lie, after lie.

I am always curious as to WHY people cannot accept Design.

Because it is unfalsifiable religious nonsense.

Why the vitriol against this and the enthusiastic embracement to come from slime.

Strawmen make up for a poor argument.

Genes are digital information. Science agrees that digital information is a product of intelligence.

It does not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Darwin's myth of evolution falls apart and those who clinged to it are lost without a reason to live? God is the one who gives hope. God is the Creationist.

One has to have more faith to believe in evolution---especially now with VERY modern science having debunked it--than to believe in a Designer who creates miracles in the lives of believers today. Forget about how we got here, for instance, we still have proof that HE exists and is the Supreme Being. Believers know this, and non-believers do also for God says so:

Romans 1:9 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Isaiah 40:21
Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands.

There is nothing in the Bible, God's Word that has ever been disproven. What is found today, such as in areas of geography, astronomy, biology, etc has proven what is found in the Bible. Not even creationism has been disproven except through fraud and myths such as is found in the "data" formulated to support Darwinism. One needs faith in God to have eternal life with God. All mankind will have eternal life (1st law of thermodynamics, which law God created and used in His forming of matter). One chooses whether he will meet God on God's good side or his own evil side.

I gave proof that even Darwin himself said that if there was found to be irreducible complexity---just one--- that his idea of how it all began would be false. Modern (2016?) science of the genome (DNA) has shown this. Yet that is unbelievable? Therein lies the magic. It's called magical thinking.

This post is a magnificent example of how the objections to evolution are not rooted in science or evidence, but in religion instead.

It's also a magnificent example that your "alternative", is ALSO nothing more or less then religion.

It is a case of "if science disagrees with my religious beliefs, then science MUST be mistaken".


Here's something for you to think about:
Whenever science and religion went "head to head" in the past... religion never won.