Why not both? Then we’d get an answer which properly honors God, by paying attention to the record of His own handiwork which He has left both written in the earth and written in the life which He created.
6 Likes
Post deleted
You didn’t just do that, you made an unsubstantiated theological argument which doesn’t even make sense. Why do people like you and Jon Garvey not realise yet that Galileo proved this is the wrong approach?
1 Like
Post deleted
I had promised myself not to engage on this thread, but here it is still going on. If I could pass any law I liked, it would be illegal to ever discuss any biological topic as analogous to software engineering, machine design, various laws of physics (like thermodynamics) or related topics. You might like to think you know how much information is in DNA, but you would be dead wrong, because if you think that, you dont really know much biology.
6 Likes
Yes. . .
I think you’re being rude to Jon. He brings a lot to this forum.
1 Like
Post deleted
3 Likes
The same way that you quantify the 3D structure of an ice crystal.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:36, topic:36834”]
Taxonomy is an artificial human construct - it carries exactly zero biologic information and is totally unrelated to this thread.
[/quote]
Then show me a mammal that is also a bird.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:36, topic:36834”]
Why don’t you explain in your own words what you understand from this (the current topic), and present your counterarguments if you dispute this statement:
“Does anyone believe that the differences between humans and chimps can be fully described in 8 MB of data? Scientific presentations that don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this topic take more than that computer storage space. Furthermore, 0.5% of our genome separates us from other humans while 1.2% separate us from bonobos and chimps. The implication is that our differences are more than skin-deep and cannot be explained by our similar genotype. The co-evolution story of chimps and humans that, given our similar genome, seemed plausible for a while, becomes much harder to accept if the genome is far less important than thought.”
[/quote]
There is nothing to counter since all you have is an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:36, topic:36834”]
Total nonsense! What does this even mean, and how is it related to this topic? Does the DNA store the letters D, N, and A?!? Perhaps H, U, M, A, N?!? Ridiculous.
[/quote]
It means the same as your question. If I stored the letters H2O on a flash drive, would that be the full extent of information in water?
3 Likes
I’m talking about this.
That’s your argument from incredulity; “I find it hard to believe, therefore it is wrong”. That;'s your most frequently used argument. you repeat it again later in the same article.
Does anyone believe that the differences between humans and chimps can be fully described in 8 MB of data?
There it is again, “This seems unbelievable to me, so it can’t be true”. What you don’t ever do is actual science.
[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:54, topic:36834”]
I have demonstrated with numbers that DNA does not define humans and does not define apes. The fact that DNA human-chimp difference is 1.2 % is therefore meaningless and we are not apes based on that.[/quote]
You didn’t demonstrate it, you just claimed it. Throwing in a few numbers here and there doesn’t change the facts. You’re not actually doing science. I don’t think you even understand what DNA is or how it works. Maybe it would help to learn about procedural generation in programming.
1 Like
That is not “argument from incredulity”.
- Someone made a claim based on some numbers.
- I demonstrated those numbers are meaningless, hence demolished that argument.
- DNAs match within 1.2% does not mean we are apes.
- Other implications of “DNA is of limited importance” as demonstrated! are: “revival of extinct species might be much harder than currently expected as would be chimera hybridization, and abiogenesis attempts currently focused on DNA and RNA might be futile”
- Nothing has anything to do with “credulity”
No you didn’t. That’s the problem. You started with the view that the argument was unbelievable, then threw in some numbers which you allege support your claim, and then twice made the argument from incredulity.
Why not? See that’s just a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Why do you say this? Well you said it before, you find it unbelievable. It’s right here.
Does anyone believe that the differences between humans and chimps can be fully described in 8 MB of data?
1 Like
Where exactly? Please quote.
No. You say “we are apes because DNAs match within 1.2%”. I demonstrate with facts that “DNA match within 1.2%” is meaningless. That is 8 MB of data which is known (not to you but to information experts) to be too little information to account for the difference between humans and apes.
In fact, you have absolutely no basis for claiming “humans are apes”. All you have is exclusion of the other life forms as closer to humans than chimps but you have absolutely no positive link between humans and chimps. And that is your argument from incredulity (excluding other organisms) and from credulity as you just believe there’s a link without positive proof.
I’ve quoted it twice.
Does anyone believe that the differences between humans and chimps can be fully described in 8 MB of data?
That was the position you started with before approaching the issue. This was step one for you; “X is not possible because I find it unbelievable”.
No, you just asserted it. You didn’t do any experiments, any science, and didn’t present any testable hypothesis (let alone actually testing it).
Sure we do, there are several independent lines of evidence.
- Fossil record.
- Atavisms.
- Genetic evidence (especially pseudogenes, ERVs, etc).
See, that’s what an argument based on evidence looks like.
2 Likes
That was a question which then I answer with this quantitative argument: “Scientific presentations that don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this topic take more than that computer storage space.” You will find other quantitative comparisons throughout this thread. These are known facts and proofs that DNA does not contain enough information to account for what makes a human, an ape or a banana.
Not so. All you have is a pre-commitment to the cult of Darwin. This clouds your judgement and most certainly makes bad science as you will label anything possible and impossible as proof. The fossil record in particular is “evidence” to the extent animation is proof of real events. Even Kettlewell considered it insufficient and therefore called his moth experiment “Darwin’s Missing Evidence”. To bad his was just another Darwinism failure.
This is an irrelevant statement. This is not a quantitative argument. If you disagree, please demonstrate how this results in a testable hypothesis.
No, they are a combination of some facts (not many), and your unsubstantiated assertions about those facts. Again, where is your testable hypothesis, where is your experimental model, where are your experimental results? You don’t have any.
This is simply more rhetoric. Note that you have not provided any facts demonstrating that these three lines of evidence are invalid.
The very article you cite contains enough evidence that the peppered moth is a genuine example of evolution. If all you have in response to those three independent lines of evidence is what some creationist said about the peppered moth, it’s clear you have no way to address the evidence for evolution.
3 Likes
@T_aquaticus wrote:
“The same way that you quantify the 3D structure of an ice crystal.”
Your response:
@NonlinOrg, I think you are in over your head. Now you are arguing whether or not the 3 dimensional configuration of a snowflake can be quantified?
Identical-Twin Snowflakes - SnowCrystals.com
As for the question about showing “a mammal that is also a bird”, it is a way of pointing out that even though traditional taxonomy was based on sometimes arbitrary human observations, the concept behind taxonomy (and “nested hierarchies”) can still have relevance.
If taxonomy was completely irrelevant, then there would be no general correlation between genetic finds and the larger taxonomic distinctions. While a bat is a mammal, it is definitely not genetically linked to birds … nor did any taxonomist attempt to group bats with other flying things.
It is the arrival of genetic science that allows us to fine-tune our “nested hierarchies”. We are all brought up to think Lions and Tigers are different kinds of animals… just like a Brown Bear is different from a Polar Bear. But, in fact, genetically, we find that Brown Bears and Polar Bears are capable of interbreeding.
And Lions and Tigers are also capable of interbreeding. The “taxonomical differences” used to distinguish Lions from Tigers, got ahead of genetic reality. Lions and Tigers - - and in fact, the whole Feline category - - are actually very closely related. Some new terminology may be needed as we learn more and more about genetic compatibilities.
Conversely, there are populations of life that are clealry incompatible … I have not heard (yet?) that there are any marsupial mammals that can breed with placental mammals… even though they are both mammals.
1 Like
Your inability to address my answers shows your inadequacies. Do you really think that an ice crystal has no information in it?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:54, topic:36834”]
What? That has nothing to do with anything.
[/quote]
It has everything to do with your post. You claimed that taxonomy was entirely arbitrary. If that were so, then you should be able to show me a mammal that is also a bird. If the nested hierarchy is not an objective fact then you should be able to show me tons of different violations of that nested hierarchy for complex eukaryotes.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:54, topic:36834”]
Ridiculous once again. Who teaches you guys this “argument from incredulity” nonsense?
[/quote]
I see that you can’t counter our argument.
Still can’t answer the question?
We are apes if chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are apes. If you group chimps, gorillas, and orangutans into a group you must also include humans because chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with those other species. It isn’t because of a specific percentage. It is because of the RELATIVE amount of DNA shared between all of those species.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:58, topic:36834”]
I demonstrate with facts that “DNA match within 1.2%” is meaningless.
[/quote]
I agree. A single percentage shared between two species is meaningless, so why keep using it? What matters is the RELATIVE amount of DNA shared between species, and how much impact those differences make.
Not all mutations produce the same amount of phenotypic change. A mutation in junk DNA will make no noticeable or very little difference in phenotype. A mutation in an important gene like hox genes can make a big difference. Therefore, treating all mutations the same as you do in this thread is meaningless.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:58, topic:36834”]
In fact, you have absolutely no basis for claiming “humans are apes”. All you have is exclusion of the other life forms as closer to humans than chimps but you have absolutely no positive link between humans and chimps. And that is your argument from incredulity (excluding other organisms) and from credulity as you just believe there’s a link without positive proof.
[/quote]
The basis is the relative amount of DNA shared between ape species, including humans. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans. If chimps, orangutans, and gorillas are apes then so too are humans.
We also have tons of evidence linking humans to other apes, such as intermediate fossils and genetic markers like ERVs.
1 Like