DNA - Blueprint for Life?

[Subduction Zone]

I dont think anyone has come up with a simulation where infinite complexity alone produces specific, efficient, systemic and logical function of any kind whatsoever. The argument against intelligence in nature sounds like smoke and mirrors. It sounds like an attempt to remove the need for an extra dimension to explain life where an extra dimension is required. IOW they simply find the implications of intelligence in nature to be unpalatable.

That would not be correct. And it has not been correct for some time. There is an old Dawkins video where he mentions such a simulation regarding the evolution of the eye.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the need for an intelligence behind life. Perhaps you can find some. I can post that video if you need to see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot tell the difference between a gorilla, a chimpanzee and a human?

The evidence I claim to have is far from accurate.
It is merely guesswork based on my diagram.
This is the case with the phylogenetic tree - the foundation for evidence of evolution.

Everything about evolution is based on a tree that is inaccurate.
So looking for evidence to fit the tree can obviously appear supportive, but it is based on what was presumed.

Why do you think this is reasonable?

The phylogenetic tree is hardly inaccurate, at least not these days. Furthermore it is testable and confirmable with more than one method. If you were aware of creationist claims before DNA could be decoded you would be a rather unhappy camper. They kept predicting that DNA would be the end of evolution when it is the strongest evidence ever for the theory.

 

[osgart]

Im not arguing evolution myself, only that adaptation is in fact intelligent. Its intelligent that the camera eye, gains the principle to enable the ability.

 

[siti]

You cannot tell the difference between a gorilla, a chimpanzee and a human?

Based on your posts - no I can't.

 

[nPeace]

The phylogenetic tree is hardly inaccurate, at least not these days. Furthermore it is testable and confirmable with more than one method. If you were aware of creationist claims before DNA could be decoded you would be a rather unhappy camper. They kept predicting that DNA would be the end of evolution when it is the strongest evidence ever for the theory.

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses,...


The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.

Also, there are problems in basing the analysis on a single type of character, such as a single gene or protein or only on morphological analysis, because such trees constructed from another unrelated data source often differ from the first, and therefore great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species.

 

[nPeace]

Based on your posts - no I can't.

Well my post doesn't do that, so that is understandable.

 

[nPeace]

Im not arguing evolution myself, only that adaptation is in fact intelligent. Its intelligent that the camera eye, gains the principle to enable the ability.

As usual, the speculations is spectacular. Well done Dawkins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses,...


The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.

Also, there are problems in basing the analysis on a single type of character, such as a single gene or protein or only on morphological analysis, because such trees constructed from another unrelated data source often differ from the first, and therefore great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species.

LOL! You do realize that plagiarism is a form of stealing don't you? You should have linked the article. That being said it is an excellent article that supports what I claimed. Too bad that you did not understand it. I will gladly help you with that. Did you not note that the article specifically called them scientific hypotheses? Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual, the speculations is spectacular. Well done Dawkins.

As a Christian you should value the Ninth Commandment more. You either did not understand the video, most likely, you do not understand what the word "speculation" that could be, or you are lying. I do not think it is the last but it may be. Remember, the proper thing to do when you do not understand something is to ask questions politely and properly.

 

[nPeace]

As a Christian you should value the Ninth Commandment more. You either did not understand the video, most likely, you do not understand what the word "speculation" that could be, or you are lying. I do not think it is the last but it may be. Remember, the proper thing to do when you do not understand something is to ask questions politely and properly.

I did link.
You have been on RF long enough to know how to use links.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did link.
You have been on RF long enough to know how to use links.

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Not in the post that I quoted. You merely did a copy and paste as far as I can see. And you seem to forget your own inability to follow a clear link earlier today.

You quoted the Wiki article again but it is rather clear that you do not understand it.

And you dodged my question.

What is a scientific hypothesis? In your own words please, not a copy and paste of an article that you did not understand.

 

[nPeace]

Not in the post that I quoted. You merely did a copy and paste as far as I can see. And you seem to forget your own inability to follow a clear link earlier today.

You quoted the Wiki article again but it is rather clear that you do not understand it.

And you dodged my question.

What is a scientific hypothesis? In your own words please, not a copy and paste of an article that you did not understand.

Were you a school teacher by any chance?
What don't you understand from my post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were you a school teacher by any chance?
What don't you understand from my post?

I understood your post just fine. Your post supported my claim since you used an article that you did not understand.

And no, I was not a school teacher. Knowing how to educate others would help with those that want to learn, but it would probably not help with those that are avoiding learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, in your own words, please describe a scientific hypothesis.

 

[nPeace]

I understood your post just fine. Your post supported my claim since you used an article that you did not understand.

And no, I was not a school teacher. Knowing how to educate others would help with those that want to learn, but it would probably not help with those that are avoiding learning.

Prove that I do not understand what I posted.
Rattle it, to it's core to show it contradicts, what I previously posted, and embarrass me.

 

[nPeace]

Once again, in your own words, please describe a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not your student. Nor am I a child, and this is not your classroom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not your student. Nor am I a child, and this is not your classroom.

I thought that you wanted to learn. You seem to know that your beliefs are wrong, but you are afraid to learn why they are wrong.

 

[ecco]

All breads carry at least some primary ingredients - yeast being one of them.

unleavened bread

 

[ecco]

It sounds like an attempt to remove the need for an extra dimension to explain life where an extra dimension is required.

Actually, the opposite is true. When ancient man could not understand nature, he injected an extra dimension into the picture. The only "need" to inject this extra dimension was to avoid saying "I don't know".

IOW they simply find the implications of intelligence in nature to be unpalatable.

Whereas ancient man could be excused for injecting a magic man in the sky, there is no comparable excuse today. So, yes, assertions of a magic man in the sky are unpalatable and irrational.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is merely guesswork based on my diagram.
This is the case with the phylogenetic tree - the foundation for evidence of evolution.

Well now that's interesting, because in your later post you state that such trees are based on genetic data.

I guess we should be happy that you corrected yourself.