I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind
The basics. Start simple, from the top. Don't preach. My first question is, what is the scientific method?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
The scientific method is a tool by which we attempt to ascertain what is true about the world we live in.
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make [i]predictions[/i] about future discoveries or observations.
[quote]I Believe We Were Created[/quote]
Let me begin with the basics.
You accept that a DNA sequencing test can show that you are closely related to your mother, slightly more distantly related to your grandmother and even more distantly related to your great grandmother.
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).
Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make [i]predictions[/i] about future discoveries or observations.
[quote]I Believe We Were Created[/quote]
Let me begin with the basics.
You accept that a DNA sequencing test can show that you are closely related to your mother, slightly more distantly related to your grandmother and even more distantly related to your great grandmother.
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).
Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]The scientific method is a tool by which we attempt to ascertain what is true about the world we live in.
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make predictions about future discoveries or observations.[/quote]
How long does it take?
ETA: By the way, the rest of your post we can get to later. That wasn't the basics, that was a pop quiz on material we haven't even begun to discuss. Kick it down a notch.
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make predictions about future discoveries or observations.[/quote]
How long does it take?
ETA: By the way, the rest of your post we can get to later. That wasn't the basics, that was a pop quiz on material we haven't even begun to discuss. Kick it down a notch.
@AkioTsukino
How long does the scientific method take? I don't understand your question.
It's not a timed sequence. It's a tool.
It can take a long time using the application thereof to build up a sufficient body of knowledge or that information can be gathered quickly. It depends on the situation but in either case, it never truly ends.
[quote]That wasn't the basics[/quote]
That very much was the basics imo. But sorry, i've been talking about this stuff for a while so maybe my barometer is off lol
I thought that since everyone knows what a paternity test is, it would be a good jumping off point to observe that DNA shows relatedness between humans and to then ask by what scientific measure do we determine that it does not show relatedness in other contexts? I'm afraid i don't know how to kick it down much more than that lol.
Perhaps you'd like to suggest what you would consider to be a basic introduction into the evidence for evolution.
Personally, as a layman, i find the above quite accessible but i'm open to starting elsewhere.
How long does the scientific method take? I don't understand your question.
It's not a timed sequence. It's a tool.
It can take a long time using the application thereof to build up a sufficient body of knowledge or that information can be gathered quickly. It depends on the situation but in either case, it never truly ends.
[quote]That wasn't the basics[/quote]
That very much was the basics imo. But sorry, i've been talking about this stuff for a while so maybe my barometer is off lol
I thought that since everyone knows what a paternity test is, it would be a good jumping off point to observe that DNA shows relatedness between humans and to then ask by what scientific measure do we determine that it does not show relatedness in other contexts? I'm afraid i don't know how to kick it down much more than that lol.
Perhaps you'd like to suggest what you would consider to be a basic introduction into the evidence for evolution.
Personally, as a layman, i find the above quite accessible but i'm open to starting elsewhere.
@AkioTsukino
Hey, you mentioned you were having trouble following the notifications. Hopefully this works as a beacon to attract your attention back here lol
Hey, you mentioned you were having trouble following the notifications. Hopefully this works as a beacon to attract your attention back here lol
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]You accept that a DNA sequencing test can show that you are closely related to your mother, slightly more distantly related to your grandmother and even more distantly related to your great grandmother.
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).[/quote]
Elsewhere on SW I'm discussing the meaning of the word god. What here is the meaning of the word related. My mother, grandmother and great grandmother gave birth resulting from sexual intercourse resulting eventually with me. Did any chimpanzees?
Part of the problem with the Creationist vs Evolutionist debate is that terms aren't clearly defined. For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related?
[quote]Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?[/quote]
I don't. I'm not a scientist. You want me to ask you some religious questions?
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).[/quote]
Elsewhere on SW I'm discussing the meaning of the word god. What here is the meaning of the word related. My mother, grandmother and great grandmother gave birth resulting from sexual intercourse resulting eventually with me. Did any chimpanzees?
Part of the problem with the Creationist vs Evolutionist debate is that terms aren't clearly defined. For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related?
[quote]Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?[/quote]
I don't. I'm not a scientist. You want me to ask you some religious questions?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]Perhaps you'd like to suggest what you would consider to be a basic introduction into the evidence for evolution.
Personally, as a layman, i find the above quite accessible but i'm open to starting elsewhere.[/quote]
I would like to know what our first common ancestor was. You know we had one, what was it?
Personally, as a layman, i find the above quite accessible but i'm open to starting elsewhere.[/quote]
I would like to know what our first common ancestor was. You know we had one, what was it?
@AkioTsukino
[quote]What here is the meaning of the word related[/quote]
Just what you know it is: Sharing ancestry. You share ancestry with your mother and a DNA test can show that. In the same way it can show you share ancestry with a chimpanzee.
The subject of your post is "I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind"...well i'm attempting to change your mind by having you answer this question.
If a DNA test can show you share ancestry with your mother, why can't it show you share ancestry with a chimpanzee? What is the difference?
[quote]For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related?
[/quote]
Yes, you are related. Your common ancestry diverged a very long time ago but you are indeed related.
I'm not sure how this represents a problem in definition of terms.
[quote]What here is the meaning of the word related[/quote]
Just what you know it is: Sharing ancestry. You share ancestry with your mother and a DNA test can show that. In the same way it can show you share ancestry with a chimpanzee.
The subject of your post is "I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind"...well i'm attempting to change your mind by having you answer this question.
If a DNA test can show you share ancestry with your mother, why can't it show you share ancestry with a chimpanzee? What is the difference?
[quote]For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related?
[/quote]
Yes, you are related. Your common ancestry diverged a very long time ago but you are indeed related.
I'm not sure how this represents a problem in definition of terms.
@AkioTsukino
[quote]I would like to know what our first common ancestor was. [/quote]
I'm sure many of us would...but is this actually a question you think evolution scientists must be able to answer at this present time in order for the theory to be true? Or if you're being honest, is it more of a gotcha question that you believe if left unanswered is a strike against evolution as a theory?
[quote]I would like to know what our first common ancestor was. [/quote]
I'm sure many of us would...but is this actually a question you think evolution scientists must be able to answer at this present time in order for the theory to be true? Or if you're being honest, is it more of a gotcha question that you believe if left unanswered is a strike against evolution as a theory?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]I'm sure many of us would...but is this actually a question you think evolution scientists must be able to answer at this present time in order for the theory to be true? Or if you're being honest, is it more of a gotcha question that you believe if left unanswered is a strike against evolution as a theory?[/quote]
Two points. 1. Never spin data (truth, evidence, facts, belief, etc.)
We don't know who our first common ancestor was. I knew the answer. I wanted to see what you would say. I wanted to see if you would spin it or just tell me the truth.
2. This is even more difficult than the first. Try not to assume what the person you are talking to is saying. If you stick to point 1 it is much easier to do this. What they may be up to is irrelevant to the data. Let them do with it what they will, then respond.
So, when I ask you a question I'm looking for two things. What you say and why you say it.
If we don't know our first common ancestor how do we know there was one. BRIEFLY.
Two points. 1. Never spin data (truth, evidence, facts, belief, etc.)
We don't know who our first common ancestor was. I knew the answer. I wanted to see what you would say. I wanted to see if you would spin it or just tell me the truth.
2. This is even more difficult than the first. Try not to assume what the person you are talking to is saying. If you stick to point 1 it is much easier to do this. What they may be up to is irrelevant to the data. Let them do with it what they will, then respond.
So, when I ask you a question I'm looking for two things. What you say and why you say it.
If we don't know our first common ancestor how do we know there was one. BRIEFLY.
@AkioTsukino
Lol glad i passed the test of honesty by not claiming that science knows all. We don't have all the answers but that itself is not a contraindication of the evidence we do have.
But i would appreciate more direct communication rather than games and tests.
[quote]If we don't know our first common ancestor how do we know there was one. BRIEFLY.
[/quote]
If you don't know who your great, great, great, great, great grandmother was....how do you know you had one?
lol but seriously, that's the answer i'm trying to move you towards and the declared subject of your thread.
How do we know we share ancestry?
To that end, and now that i've answered a couple questions for you, i'd appreciate your answer to mine: By what consistent metric do you determine that DNA shows relatedness in humans but not between humans and other animals?
What scientific method allows you to declare that DNA shows relatedness up to point x but not beyond?
Lol glad i passed the test of honesty by not claiming that science knows all. We don't have all the answers but that itself is not a contraindication of the evidence we do have.
But i would appreciate more direct communication rather than games and tests.
[quote]If we don't know our first common ancestor how do we know there was one. BRIEFLY.
[/quote]
If you don't know who your great, great, great, great, great grandmother was....how do you know you had one?
lol but seriously, that's the answer i'm trying to move you towards and the declared subject of your thread.
How do we know we share ancestry?
To that end, and now that i've answered a couple questions for you, i'd appreciate your answer to mine: By what consistent metric do you determine that DNA shows relatedness in humans but not between humans and other animals?
What scientific method allows you to declare that DNA shows relatedness up to point x but not beyond?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]Lol glad i passed the test of honesty by not claiming that science knows all.[/quote]
You're spinning . . .
[quote]We don't have all the answers but that itself is not a contraindication of the evidence we do have.[/quote]
No one has all the answers. Not even close.
[quote]But i would appreciate more direct communication rather than games and tests.[/quote]
Then don't spin.
[quote]If you don't know who your great, great, great, great, great grandmother was....how do you know you had one?[/quote]
You're trying to convince me of what I've already told you I know because you think we are adversaries and you can convert me? And you tell me you want no games and tests.
I know that my great, great, great, great, great grandmother existed because that is what we observe in nature. People make people. Chimps make chimps.
[quote]How do we know we share ancestry?[/quote]
Remember my question on bananas?
[quote]To that end, and now that i've answered a couple questions for you, i'd appreciate your answer to mine: By what consistent metric do you determine that DNA shows relatedness in humans but not between humans and other animals?[/quote]
I thought I answered this. I keep half responding to posts. Though, no one ever answers my questions. (Hyperbolic intensifier)
[media=https://youtu.be/fu5XDrdD7KM]
The answer to the question, I don't. That is I don't determine that DNA shows relatedness etc.
[quote] What scientific method allows you to declare that DNA shows relatedness up to point x but not beyond?[/quote]
I think we covered that in chapter 6, didn't we? Chapter 6 in which Eeyore has a birthday and gets 2 presents.
Again, I don't. Meaning I have no idea.
You're spinning . . .
[quote]We don't have all the answers but that itself is not a contraindication of the evidence we do have.[/quote]
No one has all the answers. Not even close.
[quote]But i would appreciate more direct communication rather than games and tests.[/quote]
Then don't spin.
[quote]If you don't know who your great, great, great, great, great grandmother was....how do you know you had one?[/quote]
You're trying to convince me of what I've already told you I know because you think we are adversaries and you can convert me? And you tell me you want no games and tests.
I know that my great, great, great, great, great grandmother existed because that is what we observe in nature. People make people. Chimps make chimps.
[quote]How do we know we share ancestry?[/quote]
Remember my question on bananas?
[quote]To that end, and now that i've answered a couple questions for you, i'd appreciate your answer to mine: By what consistent metric do you determine that DNA shows relatedness in humans but not between humans and other animals?[/quote]
I thought I answered this. I keep half responding to posts. Though, no one ever answers my questions. (Hyperbolic intensifier)
[media=https://youtu.be/fu5XDrdD7KM]
The answer to the question, I don't. That is I don't determine that DNA shows relatedness etc.
[quote] What scientific method allows you to declare that DNA shows relatedness up to point x but not beyond?[/quote]
I think we covered that in chapter 6, didn't we? Chapter 6 in which Eeyore has a birthday and gets 2 presents.
Again, I don't. Meaning I have no idea.
@AkioTsukino
[quote]Then don't spin.[/quote]
I didn't spin. I directly told you that science doesn't have all the answers and then asked you how you thought your questions where pertinent.
But who cares. Leave all that posturing behind and let's focus on the actual subject.
[quote]That is I don't determine that DNA shows relatedness etc.
[/quote]
So to be clear: you don't accept that DNA shows relatedness or you don't have an answer to how you decide that DNA shows relatedness between humans but not in other contexts?
[quote]Then don't spin.[/quote]
I didn't spin. I directly told you that science doesn't have all the answers and then asked you how you thought your questions where pertinent.
But who cares. Leave all that posturing behind and let's focus on the actual subject.
[quote]That is I don't determine that DNA shows relatedness etc.
[/quote]
So to be clear: you don't accept that DNA shows relatedness or you don't have an answer to how you decide that DNA shows relatedness between humans but not in other contexts?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]So to be clear: you don't accept that DNA shows relatedness or you don't have an answer to how you decide that DNA shows relatedness between humans but not in other contexts?[/quote]
Why do you not answer my questions? Why do you only preach to me. It sounds to me like you are just asking questions from a text book expecting some light to go off in the idiot theist's mind. But, like I said, I shouldn't assume what you are up to. I've answered your question by saying I have no idea. I don't accept, reject, or care about what DNA shows.
Would you like to know why, or would you rather we move on.
For the third time I will ask you to answer my question on bananas. Part of the problem with the Creationist vs Evolutionist debate is that terms aren't clearly defined. For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related? Do you understand the problem I have with what DNA can allegedly show regarding relation? I don't know what it means. It means nothing to me.
Why do you not answer my questions? Why do you only preach to me. It sounds to me like you are just asking questions from a text book expecting some light to go off in the idiot theist's mind. But, like I said, I shouldn't assume what you are up to. I've answered your question by saying I have no idea. I don't accept, reject, or care about what DNA shows.
Would you like to know why, or would you rather we move on.
For the third time I will ask you to answer my question on bananas. Part of the problem with the Creationist vs Evolutionist debate is that terms aren't clearly defined. For example, what can a DNA sequencing test show regarding my being related to bananas? 50%? Are we related? Do you understand the problem I have with what DNA can allegedly show regarding relation? I don't know what it means. It means nothing to me.
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu Not clear on what answer?
@AkioTsukino
[quote]It sounds to me like you are just asking questions from a text book expecting some light to go off in the idiot theist's mind.[/quote]
It sounds like you're feeling an adversarial tone where none is intended. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
[quote]Why do you not answer my questions?[/quote]
Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.
[quote]Do you understand the problem I have with what DNA can allegedly show regarding relation? I don't know what it means. It means nothing to me.[/quote]
No i'm afraid i don't understand.
Maybe you can answer this question for the purpose of clarity: Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?
[quote]It sounds to me like you are just asking questions from a text book expecting some light to go off in the idiot theist's mind.[/quote]
It sounds like you're feeling an adversarial tone where none is intended. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
[quote]Why do you not answer my questions?[/quote]
Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.
[quote]Do you understand the problem I have with what DNA can allegedly show regarding relation? I don't know what it means. It means nothing to me.[/quote]
No i'm afraid i don't understand.
Maybe you can answer this question for the purpose of clarity: Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]It sounds like you're feeling an adversarial tone where none is intended. Sorry for the misunderstanding.[/quote]
Not adversarial. Very polite and diplomatic. Preaching. No need to apologize. The assumption is mine.
[quote]Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.[/quote]
Thank you. Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA? How do we know DNA exists?
This is why I ask. Early 1990s. A case where the deceased victim had been hog tied. Years later (2007) a hair was found in the shoelaces used to bind the victim. DNA testing alleged the hair found was the victim's stepfather. There was only a certain percentage that was conclusive. Plus I find hairs on me all of the time belonging to someone who I have no idea who it is. So, inadmissible in court. So called science has been responsible for putting a lot of innocent people away. Fingerprints and burn patterns, for example. Lie detectors. That's why. It isn't that I reject it, it's that I'm suspicious.
[quote]Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?[/quote]
I don't know. That would depend. First of all I don't need it so it's an Ockham's razor. Secondly I'm ignorant of it so I can't say. Thirdly I've seen how science can be manipulated, misinterpreted, abused and neglected. Fourthly I would want to know if there were a margin of error - what and why that is or is not - Put simply, I doubt it but would need to know more. I would do independent research. I would ask questions of those who could answer them. Honestly. I'm skeptical, so even then I would likely be unsure. But then again, who is ever really completely sure? If they know what they are talking about.
Not adversarial. Very polite and diplomatic. Preaching. No need to apologize. The assumption is mine.
[quote]Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.[/quote]
Thank you. Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA? How do we know DNA exists?
This is why I ask. Early 1990s. A case where the deceased victim had been hog tied. Years later (2007) a hair was found in the shoelaces used to bind the victim. DNA testing alleged the hair found was the victim's stepfather. There was only a certain percentage that was conclusive. Plus I find hairs on me all of the time belonging to someone who I have no idea who it is. So, inadmissible in court. So called science has been responsible for putting a lot of innocent people away. Fingerprints and burn patterns, for example. Lie detectors. That's why. It isn't that I reject it, it's that I'm suspicious.
[quote]Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?[/quote]
I don't know. That would depend. First of all I don't need it so it's an Ockham's razor. Secondly I'm ignorant of it so I can't say. Thirdly I've seen how science can be manipulated, misinterpreted, abused and neglected. Fourthly I would want to know if there were a margin of error - what and why that is or is not - Put simply, I doubt it but would need to know more. I would do independent research. I would ask questions of those who could answer them. Honestly. I'm skeptical, so even then I would likely be unsure. But then again, who is ever really completely sure? If they know what they are talking about.
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino [quote]That would depend .... it's an Ockham's razor.[/quote]
That makes me think of a thought I try to remember in many contexts. I jokingly refer to it as [i]the Even More General Theory of Relativity.[/i]
Stated in full - "It all depends".
That makes me think of a thought I try to remember in many contexts. I jokingly refer to it as [i]the Even More General Theory of Relativity.[/i]
Stated in full - "It all depends".
@AkioTsukino
[quote] Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA?[/quote]
Yes it means that you share DNA but it means that you share more active or "coding" sections of DNA the more closely related you are. You might call it pattern recognition and this similarity in pattern is observably shown to increase the more closely related people are.
That's a paternity test and that test is essentially a dummed down version of the testing used to determine genetic relatedness between other species.
And important thing to remember: This conclusion does not exist in a vacuum. It is one line of evidence which converges on the same conclusion as others. Genetic similarity conforms to a very high degree to the phylogenies that people like Darwin established before we ever discovered genes.
[quote]How do we know DNA exists?
[/quote]
Well it's been observed under an electron microscope, for starters.
Scientists can manipulate it to achieve empirical outcomes in test animals.
But beginning from accepting the premise that DNA is a real thing, is your answer for where and how to draw the line when it stops showing relatedness simply "I don't know"? (valid answer)
[quote] Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA?[/quote]
Yes it means that you share DNA but it means that you share more active or "coding" sections of DNA the more closely related you are. You might call it pattern recognition and this similarity in pattern is observably shown to increase the more closely related people are.
That's a paternity test and that test is essentially a dummed down version of the testing used to determine genetic relatedness between other species.
And important thing to remember: This conclusion does not exist in a vacuum. It is one line of evidence which converges on the same conclusion as others. Genetic similarity conforms to a very high degree to the phylogenies that people like Darwin established before we ever discovered genes.
[quote]How do we know DNA exists?
[/quote]
Well it's been observed under an electron microscope, for starters.
Scientists can manipulate it to achieve empirical outcomes in test animals.
But beginning from accepting the premise that DNA is a real thing, is your answer for where and how to draw the line when it stops showing relatedness simply "I don't know"? (valid answer)