The DNA did. But not your assessment of it. Or the looking for patterns in it. Or running an algorithm.
like I said. You do not read.
Richard
Please show how the nested hierarchy does not exist. Are all bovines also mamals? Are all mammals also vertebrates?
I read your denial of facts just fine. The nested hierarchy is a fact.
2 Likes
"That is the whole point of Nested DNA. It is supposed to prove ToE.â
- Somebody doesnât understand the difference between proof and evidence supporting a theory, does he?
- From Gemini AI:
Nested DNA, while not a direct proof of evolution, provides strong supporting evidence for the theory of common descent, a fundamental concept within evolutionary theory. Hereâs why:
What is Nested DNA?
Nested DNA refers to the pattern observed in genetic sequences, where segments of DNA from one species are found within the DNA of another, more closely related species. This pattern suggests that these species share a common ancestor.
How Does Nested DNA Support Common Descent?
Hierarchical Pattern: The nesting of DNA sequences mirrors the hierarchical classification system of organisms. For example, humans share more DNA with chimpanzees than with dogs, reflecting our closer evolutionary relationship.
Predictive Power: Nested DNA patterns allow scientists to make accurate predictions about the evolutionary relationships between species. For instance, if two species share a high degree of nested DNA, we can infer that they diverged from a common ancestor more recently than two species with less nested DNA.
Why Isnât Nested DNA Direct Proof?
While nested DNA provides compelling evidence for common descent, it doesnât directly prove the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection or genetic drift. These mechanisms explain how evolution occurs, but nested DNA primarily demonstrates that evolution has occurred.
Conclusion
Nested DNA is a powerful tool for understanding the evolutionary relationships between species. It provides strong support for the theory of common descent, which is a cornerstone of evolutionary biology. While it doesnât directly prove the mechanisms of evolution, it offers compelling evidence for the branching pattern of life that is central to evolutionary theory.
1 Like
No â nested hierarchy is not a start, it is an observation, or a conclusion from observations. Itâs little different from picking up pieces found on a playroom floor, sorting the, and recognizing that they go together to make a certain toy.
Only in solipsism. If there are no facts, there is no meaning. Indeed, if there are no facts there is no Creator; if there are no patterns there is no Creator.
That might be a decent point if you could provide links to papers where that approach is used.
2 Likes
Because if you didnât, in some contexts, you would kill people.
Yes, Richard, I get it. We all get it. I am not disputing that there are more points of view than the empirical one. Nor is anyone else.
All we are saying is that just because there are other points of view, that doesnât give you a free pass to dismiss the scientific one out of hand altogether. By all means consider philosophical, religious or Biblical viewpoints as well. But making things up, inventing your own alternative reality, or misrepresenting evidence needs to be off the table.
Itâs called telling you to make sure your facts are straight.
And yes I am telling you that there are constraints on the way that data can be interpreted. If there werenât, then you would be able to claim that 2+2=5, that the Earth is flat and covered by a solid dome, or that Cambridge is in Scotland and St Andrews is in West Sussex.
I canât force you to stick within those constraints of course. But you canât expect anyone to take you seriously if you donât.
Well you did tell me to âget off my high horseâ in response to me stating that in principle honesty and factual accuracy are non-negotiable.
No Richard, I donât. Donât be silly. Of course believing Scripture doesnât make you dishonest! Itâs telling people to get off their high horses for demanding that you get your facts straight that makes you dishonest.
The right to make things up and invent your own alternative reality?
Because thatâs what it sounds like to the rest of us, even if that is not what you intend.
That may be so, but the Real World doesnât.
If you tried to approach any reasonable job other than in the ivory towers of academia with a mind that works philosophically, you would end up with a situation such as this:
4 Likes
You need to get out more.
Like i sid. You are contexting your view to a specific area of work.
No. Your answers indicate that you do not. You cannot conceive a place where Science does not dominate.or the scientific view fails.
And as such i am wasting my time and yours.
I answered that one as well. (although last time it was 1+ 1)
2+2=?
11, or 10
I cannot conceive a place where it would equal 5.
relies on a world view that i do not have.
However there are several churches Called St Andrews in East Sussex.
Richard
Or in my conservation work, totally fail.
Yeah, pretty much. It matches with how he puts his opinion above scripture.
1 Like
Metaphysics by definition, ethics, faith, hope, love, kittens, art, music, miracles, revelation.
3 Likes
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy disagrees[1]:
âA fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true.â
Itâs not alone.
Iâm going to take the words of multiple philosophers and philosophy reference works as being more reliable and reflective of actual philosophy.
1 Like
With added emphasis:
There are several churches and schools called St Andrews in West Sussex too.
Hmmm. This isnât so much pot vs kettle as pot vs Vantablack.
1 Like
Or anyplace prior to 500 years ago.
Yes, but not a town, a university, or a golf course.
Not unless someone is trying to argue that the Old Course is next to Gatwick Airport and St Salvatorâs Quad is my local branch of Tesco, because philosophy.
Come on James, I am crediting you with intelligence, kindly credit me with some. My words are chosen carefully. Please do not make me explain them like you are a school child.
Perhaps you skill set is less well honed out of the lab?
Richard
So you carefully chose to write âEast Sussexâ in response to a post that said âWest Sussexâ.
Iâm sure everyone here, schoolchild or otherwise, would be entertained enlightened by an explanation of your carefully chosen words. Donât forget to include the reason why you switched from âWestâ to âEastâ.
Misread. Used to live down there. Oh dear, I am not perfect. Never mind. \there are also several schools called St Andrews.
The point being that The data (St Andrews, can be interpreted more than one way if not clarified. And the âfactsâ change with each understanding or definition.
Tell me. Did you understand how 2+2= 11, or 10?
I might call it basic maths but that could be stretching my linguistics a bit too far.
Richard
Base 3 or base 4.
2+2=5 can occur when rounding non-integer values and the actual sum is e.g. 2.35+2.29=4.64.
It can also result from redefining the symbols.
2 Likes
Okay so you get the maths. Perhaps you can equate it to what we were discussing?
In the lab or other scientific environment facts can be defined as âThe best working theoryâ, but outside that environment such âfactsâ do not carry the same weight.
Claiming 2+2 must equal 4 as a fact is foolish if you are working in Ternary or Quaternery bases, so some of the claims of science can seem equally foolish when not in the scientific lab
Claiming St Andres is in Scotland only applies if you are talking about the Golf course. That fact disappears if you widen the understanding of St Andrews to include any place or building that has that name.
The whole point of this charade is that Scientists seem quick to ridicule another viewpoint or claim lies when in actuality the person is accurate within the context given. Also, just because something is a fact in science does not mean that denying that fact outside science is either lying, or deceitful or in anyway insulting the scientific usage. Outside the lab people will access data or ideas that do not exist or are nor taken into account inside the lab.
IOW we are not expressing bad attitudes to science when we are not in a scientific dominated environment.(like this one isnât)
Richard
Certainly. You are overestimating your relative competence. What you think may be difficult to understand may actually be trivial to some-one with more experience and/or knowledge.
1 Like
Always quick to blow your own trumpet and try and mute mine.
The existence of this thread proves you wrong.
Richard
Science indeed is limited in its scope. It is our best understanding, subject to correction. As far as I can tell, those are the points that Richard is trying to make.
But science works perfectly well in the real world, when applied to questions of physical things and processes. If you run an analysis that tries to arrange data into a nested hierarchy but the data donât fit the model well, the support values will be poor. Not all publications do a good job with statistical testing (e.g., molecular clocks); see also the disparaging comments on science journalism in another thread.
4 Likes