What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[xianghua]

I heard that Orangtuans have DNA more closer to man’s than chimps.

yep, at least at some parts of the genome:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126131548.htm

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if they were able to do so you will say that a self replicating car doesnt need a designer then?

But they aren't able to do so.

Sheesh, why doesn't this sink in......................

You can't make an argument about reality, by appealing to the imaginary.
You can't argue against established science, by offering imaginary counter evidence.

Non-living, non-biological things are not subject to the laws and processes that biological living things are subject to.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[xianghua]

But they aren't able to do so.

why you cant answer a simple question? its a theoretical question (in science we can ask many theoretical questions). do you think that if you will find a self replicating car it will be evidence for design or not? i have no problem to answer "yes".

 

[pitabread]

why you cant answer a simple question? its a theoretical question (in science we can ask many theoretical questions).

Your question isn't even theoretical; it's just pure fantasy.

A theoretical question should at least have some basis for its reasoning. You keep going on about self-replicating objects, but you've never defined or demonstrated how such things would even be possible. All you're doing is trying to prop up an argument about design based on the false equivalence fallacy between non-living and living things.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep going on about self-replicating objects,

Like photocopiers?

 

[sfs]

What I meant is that you don't appear to understand the nature of science experiments. Science never concludes with absolute certainty as you ask. Rather it deals with conclusions that are probably true or almost certainly true. The expression I used in my reply, P< .005, is scientific shorthand to say that the probability that the conclusion is not true based on this experiment is less than .5%.

Technical tangent: that's not actually what a p-value means. The p-value is used in hypothesis testing, and tells you how probable it is that you would get the given result if the null hypothesis were true. Here, the null hypothesis is that the OP understands scientific experiments: you're saying that there's a 0.5% chance that someone who understands science would say something like what he said. That does not tell you the probability that your conclusion is true. That probability depends on the background rate of understanding science, and can be very different than the p-value.

This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is an important one and one that even many scientists don't understand -- which is one reason why so many scientific results turn out to be wrong.

Take a cartoon example. Suppose we have a medical screening test with a false positive rate of 0.5% (and zero false negatives). If you screen people with the test, in hypothesis testing terms you're seeing if you should reject the null hypothesis that they are healthy (i.e. don't have the condition you're testing for). So the p-value for a positive test result is 0.005.

If I'm tested and test positive, what is the probability that I have the condition? It depends on how common the condition is. If 10% of the screened population has it (say, high blood pressure in some cohort), then the probability that I have it is high. If you screen a million people, 100,000 will test positive because they have high blood pressure. Of the other 900,000, 4500 will test positive because of the 0.5% false positive rate. That means the probability I actually have high blood pressure is 96% (100,000 out of 104,500 that tested positive) after a positive test result. A high probability -- although note that it is lower than the 99.5% you might think from the p-value.

On the other hand, suppose only one person in a million has the condition. Then there will be 1 true positive out of the million screened and 5000 false positives; if I test positive, the probability that I am actually sick is only 0.02%. So the conclusion "I have X condition" is almost certainly wrong, even though the p-value is still 0.005.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like photocopiers?

No. Photocopiers are not self-replicating objects.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is an important one and one that even many scientists don't understand -- which is one reason why so many scientific results turn out to be wrong.

Take a cartoon example. ...

Your example is more than just a cartoon - it's a good illustration of the very real problems people can have with interpreting and understanding the results of medical tests for various conditions, and how counter-intuitive the correct interpretation can be (in terms of how likely they are to have the condition they've been tested for).

 

[DogmaHunter]

why you cant answer a simple question? its a theoretical question (in science we can ask many theoretical questions).

It's not a theoretical question. It's, at best, a "what if" question about an imaginary world.

A car is a car and is not a living creature.
"what if it was a living creature?" is not a meaningfull question in context of discussing a scientific theory to explain what actually exists.

do you think that if you will find a self replicating car it will be evidence for design or not? i have no problem to answer "yes".

Not all questions deserve an answer. Sometimes, the question itself is simply invalid. And that's certainly the case here.

 

[xianghua]

It's not a theoretical question. It's, at best, a "what if" question about an imaginary world.

A car is a car and is not a living creature.
"what if it was a living creature?" is not a meaningfull question in context of discussing a scientific theory to explain what actually exists.



Not all questions deserve an answer. Sometimes, the question itself is simply invalid. And that's certainly the case here.

why? we find motors in nature for instance. so if a motor with a self replicating system can evolve by evolution why not a self replicating car?

 

[xianghua]

A theoretical question should at least have some basis for its reasoning. You keep going on about self-replicating objects, but you've never defined or demonstrated how such things would even be possible..

a flower isnt a self replicating object? a penguin? atp synthase?:

(image from In which direction does ATP synthase rotate?)

 

[pitabread]

a flower isnt a self replicating object? a penguin? atp synthase?

Those are living organisms with known mechanisms by which reproduction occurs.

You, however, keep going on about non-living objects reproducing. So unless you are prepared to demonstrate how such a thing would be possible, your questions/analogies/examples regarding self replicating objects are irrelevant. And they will remain irrelevant no matter how many times you ask.

And on top of that, even if self replicating objects were possible and we somehow created them, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's relevant to the origin of biological life on this planet.

 

[xianghua]

Those are living organisms with known mechanisms by which reproduction occurs.

You, however, keep going on about non-living objects reproducing.

no. i actually refer to a car that made from organic component, like a living thing. so in this case the analogy is good since we dealing with a living object.

 

[bhsmte]

no. i actually refer to a car that made from organic component, like a living thing. so in this case the analogy is good since we dealing with a living object.

Show us one.

 

[AmazingGraceCountry]

I think there is something wrong with anyone who begins to even
question their DNA, let alone whether we share it with another creature.

Believe in God, and understand He does not answer to anyone for his decisions,
DNA included.

 

[pitabread]

no. i actually refer to a car that made from organic component, like a living thing.

Then it's not a car. You can't just arbitrarily change the entire properties of an object and have it remain the same object.

This is the problem with invoking arbitrary fantasy objects. Because the objects you keep bringing up are both non-existent and ill-defined, there is no reason to treat them as analogous to anything. Consequently, they don't support your argument.

so in this case the analogy is good since we dealing with a living object.

If you want to talk about living organisms, then just talk about living organisms. You don't need an analogy in the first place.

Using vague, ill-defined, non-existent objects does not make for a good analogy. In fact, it's not even an analogy at all.

 

[durangodawood]

I heard that Orangtuans have DNA more closer to man’s than chimps.

Not to all humans. Just redheads.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why? we find motors in nature for instance. so if a motor with a self replicating system can evolve by evolution why not a self replicating car?

This question is at the core of your fallacy.

Motors in biological systems are molecular in scale, made of biological components, are part of living creatures that are known to evolve, are relatively simple, and have a plausible evolutionary explanation. Cars are none of those things and are known to be manufactured. They are not comparable for your purpose. They only have the concept of rotation and the word 'motor' in common.

 

[Speedwell]

why? we find motors in nature for instance. so if a motor with a self replicating system can evolve by evolution why not a self replicating car?

Why not? But it doesn't mean that just because a manufactured car is known to be intelligently designed, some self-replicating, evolving entity must also be intelligently designed just because you call it a car, too.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not to all humans. Just redheads.