Common design code

[Stu]

In the past few years t8 has claimed (more than once) that the similarity in DNA between different species of animal (or if you prefer, different “kinds”) is not evidence of descent from a common ancestor but evidence that the designer used the same or similar code in different species.

So my question, which I have asked t8 before with no response whatever is:

Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals?

Any takers? Or are creationists wary of accidentally making claims that can be actually tested?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2011,14:31)

In the past few years t8 has claimed (more than once) that the similarity in DNA between different species of animal (or if you prefer, different “kinds”) is not evidence of descent from a common ancestor but evidence that the designer used the same or similar code in different species. So my question, which I have asked t8 before with no response whatever is: Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals? Any takers?  Or are creationists wary of accidentally making claims that can be actually tested? Stuart

This is not even difficult to understand. As I have said so many times there are many common program features such as waste management and reproduction also aging and defense mechanisms.

You will not find much variation in these designations, however all the variations backup the data that there is a general design of all life.

Actually if the bible is true all of the common ancestry would have come from the ingredients we find on earth and then was animated and therefore all things being in common and yet specified and kinds were made distinct and yet general

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 11 2011,12:30)

Quote (Stu @ April 10 2011,14:31) In the past few years t8 has claimed (more than once) that the similarity in DNA between different species of animal (or if you prefer, different “kinds”) is not evidence of descent from a common ancestor but evidence that the designer used the same or similar code in different species. So my question, which I have asked t8 before with no response whatever is: Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals? Any takers?  Or are creationists wary of accidentally making claims that can be actually tested? Stuart This is not even difficult to understand. As I have said so many times there are many common program features such as waste management and reproduction also aging and defense mechanisms. You will not find much variation in these designations, however all the variations backup the data that there is a general design of all life. Actually if the bible is true all of the common ancestry would have come from the ingredients we find on earth and then was animated and therefore all things being in common and yet specified and kinds were made distinct and yet general

Can I put you down for a “yes” to the question then?

Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals?

Yes?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 11 2011,16:36)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 11 2011,12:30) Quote (Stu @ April 10 2011,14:31) In the past few years t8 has claimed (more than once) that the similarity in DNA between different species of animal (or if you prefer, different “kinds”) is not evidence of descent from a common ancestor but evidence that the designer used the same or similar code in different species. So my question, which I have asked t8 before with no response whatever is: Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals? Any takers?  Or are creationists wary of accidentally making claims that can be actually tested? Stuart This is not even difficult to understand. As I have said so many times there are many common program features such as waste management and reproduction also aging and defense mechanisms. You will not find much variation in these designations, however all the variations backup the data that there is a general design of all life. Actually if the bible is true all of the common ancestry would have come from the ingredients we find on earth and then was animated and therefore all things being in common and yet specified and kinds were made distinct and yet general Can I put you down for a “yes” to the question then? Do you predict that because the designer uses the same or similar code in different animals that the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals? Yes? Stuart

No.

Nor do I expect a cake to tase the same or have the same texture because common cake ingredients are used.

I would preict that a Supreme designer could compose a set of programs with infinite variation just how we have mathematics with only 10 basic digits 0 through 9

and who even knows the variation of the elemental charts and the possible combinations to create different materials?

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 12 2011,07:05)

No. Nor do I expect a cake to tase the same or have the same texture because common cake ingredients are used. I would preict that a Supreme designer could compose a set of programs with infinite variation just how we have mathematics with only 10 basic digits 0 through 9 and who even knows the variation of the elemental charts and the possible combinations to create different materials?

OK, not sure in what sense animals can be thought of as different cakes made from common ingredients, or what different materials you have in mind, but I guess you are saying that it might be or it might not be that common code would be used by a designer and therefore there is no evidence to be had for common design in the appearance of the same (or functionally equivalent) DNA sequences in different animal species.

t8 appears to think you are wrong.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 12 2011,16:19)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 12 2011,07:05) No. Nor do I expect a cake to tase the same or have the same texture because common cake ingredients are used. I would preict that a Supreme designer could compose a set of programs with infinite variation just how we have mathematics with only 10 basic digits 0 through 9 and who even knows the variation of the elemental charts and the possible combinations to create different materials? OK, not sure in what sense animals can be thought of as different cakes made from common ingredients, or what different materials you have in mind, but I guess you are saying that it might be or it might not be that common code would be used by a designer and therefore there is no evidence to be had for common design in the appearance of the same (or functionally equivalent) DNA sequences in different animal species. t8 appears to think you are wrong. Stuart

Maybe you misunderstand T8.

[bodhitharta]

STU,

“the same job would be expected to be done the same way in different animals?”

That was the line you put in the question that was trying to force an error in thinking however you have been found out again.

[Stu]

That's the question I mean to ask. How is it forcing any error in thinking? What is an “error in thinking”? Do you mean the usual logical fallacies or is that when the Think Police correct you for thinking the wrong dogmas?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ April 13 2011,07:03)

That's the question I mean to ask.  How is it forcing any error in thinking?  What is an “error in thinking”?  Do you mean the usual logical fallacies or is that when the Think Police correct you for thinking the wrong dogmas? Stuart

It was the vagueness and the use of the word “animals” which has a vast implication. for instance, All animals are not mammals and therefore do not feed their children the way that non mammals do.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 13 2011,08:10)

Quote (Stu @ April 13 2011,07:03) That's the question I mean to ask.  How is it forcing any error in thinking?  What is an “error in thinking”?  Do you mean the usual logical fallacies or is that when the Think Police correct you for thinking the wrong dogmas? Stuart It was the vagueness and the use of the word “animals” which has a vast implication. for instance, All animals are not mammals and therefore do not feed their children the way that non mammals do.

Well you could always highlight the words “same job” in the question. If the job is feeding milk to the young that is a different job from feeding worms to the young.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote

I'd say no gods exist. t8 you still have not answered my question that asked you, given your idea that the same code would be used by the designer in different species, whether you predict that the same job would be done the same way in different species. Do you? We can use the example of the eye to illustrate, if you like.  Would you expect the eye to be similar in different species that have eyes because there is code in common? Stuart

Not sure I understand the question completely, but I would imagine that most common code is for basic functions of which there are many. Then there would be specific differences that suit each species.

You could ask the same question in a synthetic sense to Steve Jobs. He might tell you that there is 80 to 90% common code in the OS of the iPad, iPhone, and iPod. Each might have much common code and hardware for the camera, and small differences in the code to operate the camera for each device. Obviously each device is better suited to a different camera given the physical size of each and what each device is being used for.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 17 2011,00:00)

Quote I'd say no gods exist. t8 you still have not answered my question that asked you, given your idea that the same code would be used by the designer in different species, whether you predict that the same job would be done the same way in different species. Do you? We can use the example of the eye to illustrate, if you like.  Would you expect the eye to be similar in different species that have eyes because there is code in common? Stuart Not sure I understand the question completely, but I would imagine that most common code is for basic functions of which there are many. Then there would be specific differences that suit each species. You could ask the same question in a synthetic sense to Steve Jobs. He might tell you that there is 80 to 90% common code in the OS of the iPad, iPhone, and iPod. Each might have much common code and hardware for the camera, and small differences in the code to operate the camera for each device. Obviously each device is better suited to a different camera given the physical size of each and what each device is being used for.

t8!

You are the one who claimed that the similarities in DNA are because the coder, in some way, used the same code in different species.

You are making a positive claim that this is a real effect. That is why I am asking you if it can actually be used as evidence of common design by predicting that the same job would be expected to be done in the same way.

If you don't predict that then I think you should withdraw the claim, because it would appear to have no particular meaning.

So, is it a yes, or a no? If it's a no, then I'll accept your admission that common code is a meaningless claim.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts