DNA sequence comparisons, a similar designer or heredity?

I think the way you are going to have to approach this to make it understandable to nonscientists is by first explaining how the DNA of known close relatives looks, so we can see the relevance of the sequencing.Also please explain "nested hierarchy." Yes it does, because design-wise, as far as basic physical structure goes, chimpanzees ARE more similar to humans than turtles.

I always have this uncomfortable feeling about cladistics that it's really some kind of trick or hoax. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand it to be a scheme that maps traits and finds that they follow the pattern of the taxonomic tree. But the taxonomic chart was based on observed similarities, so what exactly is it that we find out by observing that cladistics discovers the same kinds of similarities, the same patterns? Shouldn't we expect this?Also, couldn't we take a collection of anything whatever, say pebbles, and arrange them in a sequence that appears to show a progression from one to another? And yet there would be no progression in any sense except a sense of similarity that exists in our own minds.And then I guess we could map these similarities in a systematic way, getting more refined about it, and it would follow the same sequence as the pebbles, and that would be the equivalent of cladistic's relation to taxonomy, if I grasp it that is.It seems to me that you are comparing apples and apples and they SHOULD exhibit similar patterns because the whole thing is based on the observation that it is possible to arrange creatures in this fashion. It's like those figure-arranging tasks on IQ tests. None of it proves descent, all it shows is that it is possible for the human mind to recognize similarities of form and group forms in a SEEMING arrangement of progressive design features.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 11:23 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 11:57 PM

Well, but a creationist of course denies the "relative ages and time periods" part of the picture here. And why wouldn't the genetic diagram agree if we're talking even only about mere design similarity? I see nothing more than that proved by this. Unless what you are measuring is, say, cupcakes, and you find that they are all composed of similar but different proportions of sugar and flour and eggs and baking powder, amazing coincidence, and then you also check the recipes by which they were made, and oh double amazing coincidence, there is the flour, the sugar, the eggs and the baking powder, and in VERY SPECIFIC QUANTITIES TOO, oh happy day.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-22-2006 12:31 AM

Well, hey, Parasomnium, that's what I thought. Funny nobody else seems to have noticed that it works. But what it does is prove that the correspondences discovered are trivial, even obvious. The method doesn't produce anything new, only the expected correspondences. It can refine them, but it can't tell us that there is a relatedness for instance, only confirm and refine the pattern of similar characteristics. Yes, but all it confirms is the similarity of design that is already observed and is not contested. It shows design similarity genetically as well as morphologically, it doesn't prove descent. Yes, and in no case could it show that there is any relation between the different cupcakes. All the comparison of observations of the various methods can do is confirm and refine the already observed similarities and differences of design, which is trivial.

I'm not saying anything about "the power of design," all I'm saying is that the methods under discussion can show that there are design similarities but not descent.

No, it's merely because I'm not thinking about any theory of design at all, I am using the term in the most casual descriptive sense.I will try to get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a busy morning.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-23-2006 11:28 AM