Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote: OK, I did note it, and adjusted the post accordingly! Doesn't change a thing. Oh, I didn't put the part about the dating assumptions in, because they are wrong! All we need to do is look what it may have been based on. I suspect that may be present rates of one thing or another.
...
Actually I had assumed they meant one pair there. But if it meant just one kind, fine, as I say it changes nothing.

I am pretty sure they meant one individual tiger, not a pair or a kind. But as you point out, this doesn't really matter. Also, let's throw out the dating assumptions as well (a little more complicated) as they have no direct bearing.
I suppose I asked the wrong question. Why bring up the tiger example at all? You are quoting a scientific paper to show that all present species of tigers originated from one (whatever, doesn't matter). But the same techniques used by the authors to find the last common ancestor of tigers can also be used to come up with a putative last common ancestor between species. I doubt that you will agree with that level of evolution. So how do you choose which scientific claims to use to back up your arguments and which to reject, when the claims deal with last common ancestors ?

sandy_mcd wrote: . Why bring up the tiger example at all? You are quoting a scientific paper to show that all present species of tigers originated from one (whatever, doesn't matter). But the same techniques used by the authors to find the last common ancestor of tigers can also be used to come up with a putative last common ancestor between species. I doubt that you will agree with that level of evolution. So how do you choose which scientific claims to use to back up your arguments and which to reject, when the claims deal with last common ancestors ?

I will tell you why. The dates, personally in any old age scenario, I consider absolutely worthless, and not worthy even of mention! Whether cosmology, biology, geology, etc. all are based on the same foundation and premise. That premise is that the universe we now have, and world, which is 'natural', and physical only, always was an will be only that. This is an assumption and belief only that cannot be proved, or supported.

In the case of the DNA here, I found it of interest that the tigers all were traced to just one pair. (One mother, as we covered, doesn't matter if there were many pairs of this ame first kind.
Any ages attempted to be assigned, however are a different kettle of fish!
"A problem is that rates of mutation are not known by direct measurement, and are often computed based on assumed evolutionary time scales. Thus all of these age estimates could be greatly in error. In fact, many different rates of mutation are quoted by different biologists" http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondria.html

Not could be, --are!

sandy_mcd wrote: So how do you choose which scientific claims to use to back up your arguments and which to reject, when the claims deal with last common ancestors ?

I now this wasn't directed at me, but I have a comment.

IT is a matter of evidence or observations and claims or explanations. I like the words observations and explanations.

Stratified sedimentary rock is an observation, DNA suggestions of single pairs are observations.

A geological column and uniformitarian derived 4.5 billion year time scal is an explanation, common anscestors is an explanation.

When hypothesizing one uses observations not explanations. For instance Creation Theory needn't even consider evolutionary explanation within it's own framework, but must adress the observations. That is the distinction, and sometimes it is hard to discern what is an observation and what is an explanation since many scientists have accepted explanations as observations. For instance they have accepted that evolutionary time has been observed and incorporated it into future scientific investigations. This isn't scientific, and has flawed a great many studies by presupposing this to be true.

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: So how do you choose which scientific claims to use to back up your arguments and which to reject, when the claims deal with last common ancestors ?

I now this wasn't directed at me, but I have a comment.

IT is a matter of evidence or observations and claims or explanations. I like the words observations and explanations.

Stratified sedimentary rock is an observation, DNA suggestions of single pairs are observations.

No, DNA suggestion of single pair is a conclusion based on observation. If you want I can show you how they reached this conclusion. I don't see how it is an observation. Unless you are saying you "observed" the first pair.

Jbuza wrote:A geological column and uniformitarian derived 4.5 billion year time scal is an explanation, common anscestors is an explanation.

What Sandy was asking and I beleive the question to be valid is why do you accept certain explanations and not others. And I beleive she also addressed the fact that you claim evidence but never actually show how it supports your position.

NO I think DNA shows that it is likely that all tigers came from a paticular pair. The conclusion is that this suggest common decent.

As to the other part of your post . . .

Jbuza wrote:NO I think DNA shows that it is likely that all tigers came from a paticular pair. The conclusion is that this suggest common decent.

As to the other part of your post . . .

You do realize that this conclusion is based on the exact same analysis which leads one to the conclusion that tigers and lions also share common decent. And the exact same analysis leads one to the conclusion that mice and whales also share common decent.

So the question remains, what determines which conclusions are valid to you and which ones are false. Please be as specific as you can, because we have seen in the past you tend to make general statements which lack an empirical component.

Jbuza wrote:NO I think DNA shows that it is likely that all tigers came from a paticular pair. The conclusion is that this suggest common decent.

As to the other part of your post . . .

It suggests that tigers of many varieties came from a single type. Assuming evolution has nothing to do with this evidence at all! The conclusion is that you don't seem to give a hoot about anything other than your beliefs. Why even bother with evidence?! Just say 'Grannydidit'!

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Please be as specific as you can, because we have seen in the past you tend to make general statements which lack an empirical component.

. . .

I think that the DNA evidence that suggests common decent of tigers from other tigers is quite plausible. God created and said that things would yield ther own kind. But when I start hearing stories about animals of two different kinds being in common decent of an animal of a third kind, I get kind of amused.

I think that it may also be plausible that cats could be in common decent from other cats. But this nonsense about a mouse and a whale being in common decent from some unknown unseen thing is funny.

[quote="BGoodForGoodSake]this conclusion is based on the exact same analysis which leads one to the conclusion that tigers and lions also share common decent. And the exact same analysis leads one to the conclusion that mice and whales also share common decent.[/quote]


LOL. Umm yeah sure you show me the study of mouse and Whale DNA that shows how they came from some common ancestor. Show me the evidence. This is most definatly a conclusion.

There is evidence that the anscestors of crested pinguins laid two eggs, there is evidence perhaps, although I haven't looked at it myself, that lions came from a single pair. These things are evidence, but when you start talking about mice and whales you are crossing over into absurd conclusions.

You wrote

Jbuza wrote:Stratified sedimentary rock is an observation, DNA suggestions of single pairs are observations.

So I responded

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:this conclusion is based on the exact same analysis which leads one to the conclusion that tigers and lions also share common decent. And the exact same analysis leads one to the conclusion that mice and whales also share common decent.

I wrote that they were both conclusions, so I don't know what your laughing about unless you again miscomprehended what both you and I had written.

Jbuza wrote:LOL. Umm yeah sure you show me the study of mouse and Whale DNA that shows how they came from some common ancestor. Show me the evidence. This is most definatly a conclusion.

???
I would agree it is a conclusion. Both conclusion are based on the same analysis, so if you would please answer the question. What differentiates one conclusion from another? Why do you accept one as seemingly an observation(1.) and the other as a conclusion?

(1.)

Jbuza wrote:Stratified sedimentary rock is an observation, DNA suggestions of single pairs are observations.

Evidence
Cytochrome C sequence in a california grey whale
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
In a mouse


Rhesus Monkey...GDVEKGKKIF IMKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGYSYTA ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFVGIKKKEE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
Dog.....................GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKTGE RADLIAYLKK ATKE
Grey Whale.........GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
Mouse.................GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
Snapping Turtle...GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLNGLIGRKT GQAEGFSYTE ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKAE RADLIAYLKD ATSK
Bull Frog..............GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTC EKGGKHKVGP NLYGLIGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RQDLIAYLKS ACSK
Skipjack Tuna......GDVAKGKKTF VQKCAQCHTV ENGGKHKVGP NLWGLFGRKT GQAEGYSYTD ANKSKGIVWN ENTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RQDLVAYLKS ATS

Jbuza wrote:I think that the DNA evidence that suggests common decent of tigers from other tigers is quite plausible. God created and said that things would yield ther own kind. But when I start hearing stories about animals of two different kinds being in common decent of an animal of a third kind, I get kind of amused.

So correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is:
1) DNA evidence for common descent of all tigers from earlier tigers is plausible.
2) DNA evidence for common descent of of mice and whales from some other animal is not plausible.
[Here is the important bit.]
You base these two opinions on what seems reasonable rather than the DNA evidence itself; science has no role in your decision making process.

sure it does I observe that cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, whales beget whales, and mice beget mice. That is based on observations. It is a conclusion not an observations that animals can produce different kinds of animals.

How bout you show evidentiary observations of DNA that indicate the relation of mice and whales. I have seen no evidence similar to dna analysis showing paris of tigers that show an orignal pair describes whales and mice.

Jbuza wrote:sure it does I observe that cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, whales beget whales, and mice beget mice. That is based on observations. It is a conclusion not an observations that animals can produce different kinds of animals.

How bout you show evidentiary observations of DNA that indicate the relation of mice and whales. I have seen no evidence similar to dna analysis showing paris of tigers that show an orignal pair describes whales and mice.

If I recall correctly this is the article you supported.

dad wrote:For example, "Analysis of the tigers' mitochondrial DNA revealed that all tigers diverged from a common ancestor " (one original pair) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: So how do you choose which scientific claims to use to back up your arguments and which to reject, when the claims deal with last common ancestors ?

I now this wasn't directed at me, but I have a comment.

IT is a matter of evidence or observations and claims or explanations. I like the words observations and explanations.

Stratified sedimentary rock is an observation, DNA suggestions of single pairs are observations.

If you care to look at the article you will see that this conclusion which you supported is based on genetic analysis.
Here is the full analysis.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... io.0020442
As you can see this is similar to the analysis one could make to prove the paternity of a child. Only the analysis will be done on nuclear genetic material instead of mitochondrial genetic material.

I'm not sure that I exactly supported it. I did say that the idea that a pari fo tigers beget all tigers, I even went on to add that I think it is possible that all cats derived from a pair of cats.