Noting lack of qualifications is not ad hominem, it is an observation.
1 Like
That is fine, but what matters is what you do with that observation.
Prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes. The need for qualifications is just one of them.
Richard
You were the first to mention DNA.
You are the one focussing on DNA.
If focussing on DNA is a ‘blidsider’, you’re the one to blame.
P.S. ‘Familial matching’ is actually the process of finding culprits who have left DNA at crime scenes by identifying similar DNA profiles among those recorded and looking for close family members.
1 Like
I know. And I also know the principles it involvein terms of what consttutes a match.
Nested DNA is part of ToE. That makes DNA mapping and understanding a valid crit.
No, see above…
I was not the one who turned the focus to DNA comparisons.
Richard
That’s extremely unlikely.
Yes. See above. The actual above.
Goalpost move from “focus on DNA” to “focus on DNA comparisons” noted.
Lack of anyone actually focussing on DNA comparisons also noted.
What is Nested DNA if it is not DNA comparison?
Basically it is claiming familial comapraison between me and an amoeba. , yeah, good luck with that.
I guess you could comare in stages, but that would need positive DNA identity going back several billion years. Do fossils retain DNA?
Oh, sorry, you are relying on modern DNA aren’t you. So what you have to do is match a mammal to a reptile, then the reptile to an amphibian and so on. Each set has enugh comparison to have a common ancester, then you link the lot together and Bingo. Amooeba to man!
(Except you still do not have a process capable of doing it)
Richard
I have no idea what you mean by “Nested DNA”, and I doubt you do either.
So I’ll just point out that you are the only person who has referred to “Nested DNA”, so if that is your only evidence that people are focussing on DNA comparisons then you are the only one doing so, and your claim that “I was not the one who turned the focus to DNA comparisons.” is, like almost everything you attempt to write, untrue.
Fair Enough
Engaged to give a talk at a university, logician Raymond Smullyan arrived half an hour early and wrote the following sentence on the blackboard, “to give the audience something to mull over”:
You have no reason to believe this sentence.
This, he reasoned, was a paradox. If you have no reason to believe the sentence, then what it states is really the case, which is certainly a good reason to believe it. But if you have a good reason to believe it, then it must be true … which means that you have no reason to believe it.
Half an hour later he came down the stairs to a packed audience. Spotting a bright-looking boy in the front row, he pointed to the sentence and asked him, “Do you believe that sentence?”
“Yes,” said the boy.
“What is your reason?”
“I don’t have any.”
Smullyan asked, “Then why do you believe it?”
The boy said, “Intuition.”
(Raymond Smullyan, “Self-Reference in All Its Glory!” conference “Self-Reference,” Copenhagen, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 2002.)
There’s that too…
1 Like
What would lead me to change my mind about what? That most people I’ve ever talked to cannot answer this question? Well…if I came across more people had could actually answer the question.
Or…what might lead me to change my mind about…anything at all?
If something in my experience or something presented by an authority controverted my expectation (as offered by my worldview) to such an extent that is was not dismissible as anomaly or overwhelmed by my own confirmation bias. Something like that.
1 Like
Yes, you were. DNA wasn’t mentioned until you mentioned it in the 5th post. Go look for yourself.
As others have mentioned, the nested hierarchy was based on morphological features for 200 years before DNA was even considered, and 100 years before the theory of evolution was even proposed. That you have to deny these obvious facts only highlights the overall weakness of your argument.
2 Likes
And was never agreed. There are/ were more variaton in sets than there are / were sets. If you are relying on morphology then there is nothing new. If DNA has nothing to do with it why the algorythms you harked on about elsewhere?
Seeks to be that each discussion is self contained and arguments used elsewhere do not apply.
only applies if you take this thread in isolation. You have been trying to regale me with DNA sequences since day 1, so stop claiming DNA has nothing to do with it.
RIchard
DNA is just an additional data point. The nested hierarchies were considered an observed fact for 200 years before the structure of DNA was discovered, much less sequenced.
2 Likes
And were never agreed! You are now in my terriyory in terms of understanding. Morphology and taxonomy were both known and discussed. The so called Evolutionary Tree changed shape mre often than I could count as was the point of comonality or ancestrtal being. Was it a primal mammal? or was ther an earlier split between Mammals and Reptiles. even befor Amphibeans. And Birds, of course had their own start in Achaeopterix rather than Dinosaurs!
Richard
Sure, there were some fine details that were argued over, but the general trend was considered a fact.
Those are just the fine details, something science is continually adjusting in a scientific fields. This is what you get when you based a methodology on testing and objective evidence instead of dogma.
Would you accept evolution more readily if it was dogmatic?
2 Likes
It is a dogma.
But the brainwashing from it has been very successful
Richard
Up is down. Black is white. Good is evil. It’s @RichardG 's mirror universe.
Apparently you will say anything in order to deny evolution.
1 Like
I was asked what would change my mind. This was my answer:
“If something in my experience or something presented by an authority controverted my expectation (as offered by my worldview) to such an extent that is was not dismissible as anomaly or overwhelmed by my own confirmation bias. Something like that.”
That’s why I went from not believing in evolution to believing evolution. Mounting evidence that could not be explained away as anomaly or overwhelmed by my own confirmation bias. Further, the view I held previously started to show its cracks through logical extrapolations.
The point is that everyone agreed that there was a “Tree”.