I take it that she means defining kinds without resorting to data, rather like your first guess.
That would have more force if you had ever come within sneezing distance of any data.
I have already gave you the data on the panda studies and you rejected it.
Nothing in that article supports a “universal common designer” or intelligent design. They emphasize that the “robust engineering” found in those redox centers is the result of natural selection.
So why did you cite that article in support of a “universal common designer”, when the paper says nothing about that?
What is the difference between Patel’s “genetic code” and the genetic code the genome is “plastered on”?
By the way, Patel conflates the genetic code with the actual information contained in DNA. Look at his definition:
The self-similarity is maintained by the hereditary information—the genetic code—that is passed on from one generation to the next. The long chains of DNA molecules residing in the nuclei of the cells form the repository of the genetic information.
What is actually passed down from one generation to the next is genetic information, not the genetic code.
In my neck of the woods, this is what we would refer to as “spitting the dummy”. It’s not a good look particularly since, if I recall, this is the second time you mentioned the AJRoberts dummy spit. OTOH, there is a silver lining. Having insulted all those who have patiently waded through your posts, it is time for you to take your bat and ball and go home.
All evidence would appear to be that @Meerkat_SK5 lacks anywhere better to retreat to. They certainly give every impression of trying to ‘hang around like a bad smell’, and trying to insert themselves into conversations like they did here.
5 posts were split to a new topic: NEqual standing for mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge)
You consistently misrepresent opinions expressed by others (and by you) as data.
For the edification of @Meerkat_SK5:
This is data:
These are words:
The one is not the same as the other.
Beg to differ. That’s analysis of data.
Yes, and in analysing the data it also contains a representation, or summary, of that data.
To some extent. The tree itself is not a representation of data but an inference resulting from algorithmic analysis of character data. But the character data are not shown or represented. There is a representation of the ages of certain fossils; that much is data. More importantly, what is shown there, in contrast to @Meerkat_SK5’s spoutings, is a rigorously justified conclusion from actual data.
Two reasons why both studies do support it. First, you are assuming random unguided mutations was the other mechanism at play, but this was never mentioned in either article.
Secondly, as I argued before, quantum phenomena, such as quantum/electron tunneling, is identical to mental phenomena in the mind, and I highlighted experiments that show how they are literally identical phenomena.
More importantly, the authors note that the observed principles of electron tunneling in biological systems are highly optimized, with electron transfer rates that are faster than expected based on classical tunneling theory.
Therefore, I acknowledge the term “engineering principles” was used in a metaphorical sense to describe the functional and structural similarities between biological and man-made electronic systems.
But, this does not mean those articles don’t support my argument; especially when I was arguing that those articles support a common designer not an intelligent designer. There is a difference. Natural selection operating on quantum mechanical properties or non-random mutations would be the common designer in this case.
Genetic information refers to the actual DNA sequence that carries the instructions for an organism’s traits, while the genetic code is the set of rules by which this information is translated into functional proteins, which is what he is referring to.
I know. This is why I specifically said that method was inspired by these studies. But, I never suggested that the method they used to determine convergence was the same as mine.
No, I think you just misunderstood me. I never suggested that the method or data they used to determine convergence from that one study was the same as mine. Instead, my method and validation of it is based on all the panda studies combined.
Given your powers of scientific discernment are, at best, negligible, your claim of being “inspired by these studies” is thoroughly uncompelling. You might as well have claimed that your what-you-call-method-but-no-scientist-would was “inspired by” The Hobbit, for all the good it does you.
My comment on words versus data was provoked by your whining:
You only gave words on your panda claims NOT DATA!
Maybe I should start referring to you as Meerly-words-NOT-DATA-kat.
I did not assume anything. The authors clearly stated natural selection acted on those 4S redox centers.
In contrast, the authors made no mention or even alluded to a “universal common designer”, yet you cited their paper in support of that idea. YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED their paper!
How exactly is this a reason for citing a paper that doesn’t mention, promote, or allude to your “universal common designer” idea?
Your amnesia is back. You claimed there was a difference between Patel’s genetic code and that which the genome was “plastered on”. What is that difference? If there isn’t any, then indicate that you wrote rubbish as usual.
I disagree. It’s utterly, incredibly dishonest. “Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same data differently” is the biggest and most deliberate lie in the creationist arsenal.
The leaders are lying because they know they are ignoring most of the data. They also regularly lie about the data themselves.
The followers are lying because they haven’t bothered to look at the data, when making a comprehensive survey of the data would be required to have any informed opinion whatsoever.
I think this is perhaps a tad disingenuous.
… was meant to be humorous understatement.
My paraphrase of her statement as:
Needless to say, we cherry-pick and massage the data to fit our predetermined interpretations, especially when it concerns origins. Being called out for our mendaciousness can be challenging!
… should have made that clear. If it did not, then I apologise.
Part of the reason I do this is that I’m very Anglophilic in my humor, another part is that when describing the dishonesty of Creationists, hyperbole is utterly redundant – so I tend to go in the opposite direction.
Yes, I realize that, but others may not.
Anybody foolish enough to bother reading this thread can take their lumps.
Understatement is a valuable skill. My wife and I consistently call any raging, flaming, rolling disaster “suboptimal.” After all, the observation that something obviously disastrous is a disaster is hardly ever really necessary anyhow. Meerkat’s attempts to simulate reason are a splendid example of suboptimality.