@divegeester
Sorry, work second shift and get home at midnight and wife in hospital right now so my time is not exactly my own. There is a site showing all I said but can't remember the name of it so googling it doesn't get to the right place just yet.
@divegeester
Here is another:
https://classroom.synonym.com/the-similarities-between-judaism-early-egyptian-religion-12087874.html
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYou are employing an anthropomorphic metaphor. Seeing DNA as if it were a book, with meaning and an author, is exactly like looking at the stars and 'seeing' Orion. The stars are really there, but Orion is imaginary. Same with DNA: the chemicals are really there; the part about DNA being a book with meaning and an author is imaginary.
Letters in a book don't put the author present in the book, any more than the arraignment of the chemicals in DNA God, but the arrangement of both the chemicals to produce form and function show an author just as much as the words present in the arrangement letters in a book. Neither the chemicals nor the letters get into a meaningful arrangement by chance and necessity.
@moonbus saidNo, not close looking at Orion would be like looking at a cloud and seeing Winnie the Pooh. Whereas seeing code that IDs a person is like looking at their name spelled out, with genetics it is done with a lot more specificity as there can be a lot of KellyJays, but one with my DNA.
You are employing an anthropomorphic metaphor. Seeing DNA as if it were a book, with meaning and an author, is exactly like looking at the stars and 'seeing' Orion. The stars are really there, but Orion is imaginary. Same with DNA: the chemicals are really there; the part about DNA being a book with meaning and an author is imaginary.
@kellyjay saidYou are employing anthropomorphic metaphors again. DNA does not "ID a person" or spell out names. DNA is not "code" -- it's just chemicals, nothing but chemicals.
No, not close looking at Orion would be like looking at a cloud and seeing Winnie the Pooh. Whereas seeing code that IDs a person is like looking at their name spelled out, with genetics it is done with a lot more specificity as there can be a lot of KellyJays, but one with my DNA.
@moonbus saidYou are saying that someone can take your DNA if you left some behind somewhere and if they have it on record know you were there by comparison?
You are employing anthropomorphic metaphors again. DNA does not "ID a person" or spell out names. DNA is not "code" -- it's just chemicals, nothing but chemicals.
@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Each individual has an individual DNA set. So it is like fingerprints, they can ID a person also. That is just how it works.
The arrangement of our genetics makes us as unique as our fingerprints, but there are billions of pieces put together in such a way that shows what and who we are. The arrangement of our genes isn't put together in any ole way, no more than letters are put together to form a thought.
How it works you have not addressed, even now you are not, and I have been begging for some mechanism you have that explains this through mindless processes.
@kellyjay saidYou are mixing up completely different topics here.
You are saying that someone can take your DNA if you left some behind somewhere and if they have it on record know you were there by comparison?
DNA determines the physiological characteristics of a body, things such as hair color, eye color, and susceptibility to various diseases. This is not the same thing as identifying a person using DNA samples; this is a forensic procedure, not a natural process.
Identical twins have identical DNA and cannot be uniquely identified/distinguished by forensic DNA analysis.