Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 12:49 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The code that is DNA
RE: The code that is DNA
You'd have a greater chance getting a banana to understand complex quantum mechanics than teaching a creatard new tricks.
RE: The code that is DNA
Oh, the suspense!

Video:


teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 19, 2019 at 12:10 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Are you incapable of using the word 'assumption' correctly?

If I say I believe that parsimony methods make assumptions that are not always met, am I using the word correctly? You want me to specifically say that parsimony methods make inferences that are not always met, or else I'm using the word incorrectly?
RE: The code that is DNA
The meanings are pretty much opposite, if you're using them interchangeably you either don't understand what they mean are you are deliberately obfuscating.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 19, 2019 at 1:12 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The meanings are pretty much opposite, if you're using them interchangeably you either don't understand what they mean are you are deliberately obfuscating.

I'm using the word appropriately; I've given no indication of using it interchangeably with inference or hypothesis (your initial accusation). Your dislike of the word has no effect on how I'm using it. In my above example I quoted the author of the text directly. He ends the introduction to his paper as follows: "I believe that parsimony methods do make assumptions that are not always met. Before discussing those assumptions, it is useful to start with an assumption that parsimony methods certainly are not guilty of making" (Felsenstein, 1983, p. 321).

Reference: Felsenstein, J. 1983. Parsimony in systematics: Biological and statistical issues. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 313–333.
RE: The code that is DNA
LOL, the problem isn't your word choice John..the problem is that you're plain and simply wrong.

Heredity is not an assumption, inference or a hypothesis. You could pick ten thousand words that don't have anything to do with what heredity is, use those words properly, and still be wrong about heredity.

Common descent is a hypothesis, but it doesn't rest on any assumption of relatedness. It rests on the observation that genetic content is inherited, and on the observation that this genetic content has...somehow.......been inherited by all known forms of life. We know of no other way that two given organisms can share inherited genetic content beyond their having a shared genetic lineage. Genetics, you see, fundamentally changed what we knew about life (as opposed to what we previously assumed or inferred, no less) - which is why the theory of evolution is called the modern synthesis. It's the unifying theory of biology. If a god "did it" - genetics is how that god did it. It didn't create pairs of any existent species. If we're being incredibly generous to the notion of meat fairies.....then the meat fairy laidd down a general framework far beneath the level of any given representative, and let life do exactly what life does from that point on.

Whether it had always hoped or intended to end up with a creature like you, John...I leave you to wonder for yourself. We'll revisit this in a moment.

Now, in Darwins time..the time that creationists are forever stuck in a loop on, evolution itself was a hypothesis, and common descent an inference based on an assumption. This was due to the fact that even though the laws of heredity were being worked out and described contemporaneously with his own work - he was simply unaware of it (though gregor mendel, a monk, had a well worn copy of Origin that he'd scribbled all over the margins of). Mendel didn't need to imagine a pea fairy that made the genetic content of every disparate lineage of pea, he knew that those peas got their "whatever" from their parents, and it was through manipulating that brute fact that he discovered the laws that are fundamental to genetics. You'll find the following in the very first chapter of the first edition of Origin.

Quote:The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown

That's Darwin himself, acknowledging even as he proposed common descent, that he had absolutely no idea what it was, or how it was, that these traits he was studying were propagated at the level of mechanics. No clue - total black box. He assumed there must be a way, he inferrred that whatever this way was it would account for the disposition of living creatures.....but beyond that, nada. That, to my mind, is the thing that was truly impressive about his work. He'd figured out how biology worked, without understanding the first thing about the engine that -did- the work. We've learned a great deal about that, since then, and some of the most important pieces of information in the puzzle have come from very devout people who do not seem to have the same difficulty that you do trying to make their faith and that body of knowledge concordant.

So I ask again..did god hope or intend to end up with a creature like you...John? I suspect not. Who knows, though, if there are gods, and gods "did it"..... maybe it does like to whip out it's own peen and stomp the living shit out of it. Maybe it likes it when creationists come here and do that, too. Maybe it's like porn for a god. Like Darwin, I don't have the slightest clue about how that works, but just like darwin (or any other thinking human being) I can still work out that if that's the case, then god is an even bigger fuckup than it's followers.

So here we are a second time, with me wondering why long discarded notions of valid claims to property are so important to your version of christianity that you will do damage to the character and reputation of your god by denying the factual glory of it's creation? It's not a requirement of christianity, is it? If there really is such a thing as god's truth, genetics must be firmly in that wheelhouse. What is it, exactly... that you imagine yourself to be doing by rejecting that truth?

While you mull that over, and fail to be humble and faithful, as you must fail to be a creationist, I'll let you ponder another question more specific to these boards. What value could dna have, as evidence for a god, if you're rejecting genetics out of hand? You're telling us that the very thing creationists point to as evidence of god...is wrong. If there is not a "design" that is inherited by living things so that they express themselves as we see them...then what, honestly, what are you cretins even mumbling about? Genetics is either true and wonderful and proves god -warts and all-, or it's wrong..and it doesn't.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
RE: The code that is DNA
I stopped reading once you implied that I've argued heredity is an assumption, etc. If I've commented on heredity quote me.

Don't confuse the process by which genes are passed down, with the evolutionary relationship among groups of organisms. The former is observed, the latter is constructed. Try again.
RE: The code that is DNA
Lol. “I stopped reading once I realized you were making indisputably valid points I have no rebuttal to.”
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
RE: The code that is DNA
Science is bad, science knows nothing, unless it involves my phone or computer, my GPS, the medicine I take, my favorite TV shows, my means of transportation, or anything else science has improved to benefit me.
RE: The code that is DNA
A description of the process in which genes are passed down very literally is a description of the relationship between any two organisms, John.

-but who cares unless we can get some definitive answer from you on whether or not you think that your ridiculous creationist beliefs are a requirement of christianity? If you really don't give a shit, and understanding that you are wrong about this wouldn't change your mind anyway.,..then the whole convo - and the entire thread, is just so much flak you've piled up in front of your actual beliefs.

I've got about 400 arguments for why vanilla is objectively better than chocolate, and not a single one is the reason that I think vanilla is objectively better than chocolate. How much time would you like to spend handling those?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2716 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are humans half aliens? Human DNA question Signa92 14 1885 December 30, 2018 at 12:34 am
Last Post: Rahn127
Brick Atheist moral code Void 45 15528 March 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: I Am Not A Human Being



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)