the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

The one that was demonstrated to be as false as can be a couple dozen times over?

Yeah that one. Apparently he wanted someone to explain it again.

 

[Kylie]

so if i will show you that, you will agree that it will be very unlikely to find a different new strucutre?

I don't see why I should be obligated to do something in order for you to provide the evidence that you should have provided when you first made the claim.

 

[Meowzltov]

fine. but remember again my car example:

the fact that we can arrange things in hierarchy doesnt prove evolution. even if those vehicles were able to reproduce.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

I remember and laugh at your car example. I have very patiently on numerous occasions explained why your use of non-life forms for examples doesn't work. But you don't pay attention and don't learn. Now my patience is all used up. Please talk to someone else.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Natural processes have not shown how they can evolve life over time any more than natural processes making a car and evolving it into other types of vehicles over time.

Mutations and natural selection.

Animals are alive. Living organisms do not have the same limitations as non-living cars.

 

[xianghua]

But it is not evidence for popping into existence, which is your claim.

no. my claim is about instantaneous creation. i could be by many ways but we cant realy know. again: we have evidence for instantaneous creation but not for evolution. so instantaneous creation is the best explanation so far for the existence of complex things like a biological motors.

They didn't make life, but they made molecules that give us a clue as to how life may have begun. And no, it was not instantaneous.

its instantaneous creation since they didnt used millions of years.

The problem is which characteristics do you go by? In many ways a Chevy pickup is closer to a Chevy car than a Ford pickup truck.

again by most of the characteristics. in such a way we will get the best result.

This is the opposite of what we find in animals. We find nested groups in which multiple characteristics of each of the nested groups sort on the same grouping. For instance, mammals differ from reptiles in that they have hair, four chambered hearts, diaphragm, high metabolism rate, mammary glands, single bone for the jaw, three middle ear bones etc. All mammals have these characteristics. See http://www.austincc.edu/sziser/Biol 1413/1413 handouts/reptile vs mammals.pdf . If you divide animals by whether they have hair, or whether they have mammary glands, or whether they have 3 bones in their ears, you end up with basically the same groupings.

not even according to your own pdf paper. as its point out: some reptiles has diaphragm. so when we find a reptile with a mammal trait\s we can just claim for convergent evolution. as i already said.

You asked me this question in the last post, and I said, "absolutely not". Why do you ask again?

if so we can even find traits that are more similar between chimp and a chicken then to chimp and human and it will not be a problem for evolution.

Again, some fish are closer to humans then they are to other fish, for the reasons I detailed to you.

but i didnt talk about that case. i talk about a fish that is cloer to other fishes then to human. so in this case, according to talkorigin criteria evolution will be false?

 

[xianghua]

You are exposing your ignorance on the process of evolution again.

With this question, you are implying that gene A was supposed to evolve into gene B. That A was destined to become B. That the purpose of A was to become B.

It's a hindsight thingy that makes no sense in context of evolution.

Sure you can try and calculate the probability of how probable it was that an ancestral primate evolved into chimps and humans. But whatever number you come up with, would be meaningless. Because if not in chimps and humans, it would have just evolved into something else (or gone extinct, like most species throughout history have done).

actually it shows your ignorance since according to evolution many different structures suppose to evolve into other different structures. of course that there are many other functional structures out there that evolution could find (i never said otherwise). but even if we have about 10^100 different possible functions it will still be nothing compare to the whole space.

Evolution gets many many tries

and how many is say 10^60 (number of tries evolution may had) out of 4^1000?

The lesson of today is: when you allow for accumulation of micro-changes, overtime you will inevitably end up with something very different.

this is true if we assume that all functional sequences are near each other. but why they should be near each other at all?

 

[xianghua]

I don't see why I should be obligated to do something in order for you to provide the evidence that you should have provided when you first made the claim.

evolution may had about 10^60 tries since the earth history. how many it is from a space of about 4^1000 different combinations?

 

[xianghua]

Mutations and natural selection.

Animals are alive. Living organisms do not have the same limitations as non-living cars.

both can be change by a natural process ( a car can change its color by a natural process for instance). so what make you think that a car cant evolve into a truck via natural process given millions of years? according to evolution it should be possible.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

both can be change by a natural process ( a car can change its color by a natural process for instance). so what make you think that a car cant evolve into a truck via natural process given millions of years? according to evolution it should be possible.

You are impervious to reason and evidence. Cars aren't natural and don't do anything naturally let alone evolve into different coloured trucks, so No, according to evolution it isn't possible.

If you're talking about an imaginary universe where cars do evolve, then Cars evolve naturally and not by design. They also evolve into trucks over millions of years as well as Boeing 747s, and submarines.... and robot penguins even. Also, this imaginary universe would have an asian car complaining about how manufactured humans could evolve by natural processes in this universe, yet nobody takes him seriously anymore because he's been shown too many times to count why his argument is in fact wrong, but he just won't listen.

 

[xianghua]

Cars aren't natural and don't do anything naturally let alone evolve into different coloured trucks, so No, according to evolution it isn't possible.

why not? if we assume that small steps over time becoming into a big step then a car can evolve into an airplane.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

why not? if we assume that small steps over time becoming into a big step then a car can evolve into an airplane.

Seriously?? Lemme highlight it for you:

Cars aren't natural and don't do anything naturally let alone evolve into different coloured trucks, so No, according to evolution it isn't possible.

 

[Kylie]

evolution may had about 10^60 tries since the earth history. how many it is from a space of about 4^1000 different combinations?

Show me how you reached those figures please.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no. my claim is about instantaneous creation. i could be by many ways but we cant realy know. again: we have evidence for instantaneous creation but not for evolution. so instantaneous creation is the best explanation so far for the existence of complex things like a biological motors. its instantaneous creation since they didnt used millions of years.

I. will. stay. calm. and. not. scream.

Breath in. Breath out. Breath in. Breath out.

Ok. This is one of the oddest lines of argument I have seen here. You post an informative link about origin of life research, in which scientists are doing experiments with self-replicating molecules that may be similar to molecules involved in the origin of life. I'm not sure how they got those molecules, but I'm sure it was a laborious practice of either isolating existing molecules or chemically synthesizing new molecules from available materials. So it was hardly "instantaneous". And it was not creation out of nothing. And most importantly they did not make zebras or even bacteria. They made fatty molecules that tended to make membranes and tended to self-propagate.

Question: If you can make membranes that tend to self-propagate, is that pretty much the same thing as making a zebra from scratch? I would think the two acts are very different. Making a membane-like material "instantaneously" is not the same things as making a zebra "instantaneously".

So where did the first zebra come from? You have agreed that the horse, zebra, and eohippus all probably came from the same ancestors that lived some 50 million years ago. You also have agreed that the fossil record gives us some indication of the timeframe in which animals existed. OK, we find no Equus (horse, donkey, zebra) fossils before 5 million years ago. We find perhaps thousands of Eohippus fossils before 50 million years ago. We find many intermediates between Eohippus and the zebra in the intermediate years. Do you agree that there were most likely no zebras 50 million years ago? Do you agree that before 50 million years ago, most fossils in the Equidae (horse) family would have been similar to Eohippus and far different from the zebra? Do you agree that the zebra evolved from the Eohippus? If not, how did the zebra get here if there were no zebras 50 million years ago?

And then we come to the question of where the first common ancestors of the horse family came from. I contend they all were similar to Eohippus--it is not clear what you think they were like. Regardless, they had to come from somewhere. My guess is that they came from something like the Hyracotherium, which is almost identical to the Eohippus, but is not considered to be in the horse family. Where do you think it came from? "Instantaneous" is not an answer. I didn't ask you how fast. I asked you how the Eohippus came into existence. Do you think it popped up out of thin air? Why could it not have come from a couple of modifications of Hyracotherium?

 

[xianghua]

Show me how you reached those figures please.

there are about 10^30 bacteria on earth. if we assume a generation time=1 hour and any generation add about 100 new mutations we will get about 10^32 mutations per hour. 4.5 billion years is more then 10^12 hours so this will give us about less then 10^50 tries since earth formation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i didnt talk about that case. i talk about a fish that is cloer to other fishes then to human. so in this case, according to talkorigin criteria evolution will be false?

Analysis of genes has shown a tremendous agreement between genes and the understood path of evolution. There may be exceptions for minor genes due to the random nature of mutations. If you know of a study that shows fish that are far from the path of humans that show unexpected gene similarity to humans, please produce the study and we will look at it.

 

[xianghua]

. So it was hardly "instantaneous". And it was not creation out of nothing. And most importantly they did not make zebras or even bacteria. They made fatty molecules that tended to make membranes and tended to self-propagate.

Question: If you can make membranes that tend to self-propagate, is that pretty much the same thing as making a zebra from scratch?

its very similar since in both case we are talking about designed genomes that were made by a design process. so it didnt take millions of years and this is the main point here.

If not, how did the zebra get here if there were no zebras 50 million years ago?

see above. im not sure about the zebra case but i do think that many creatures were made by a designer at once (dont ask me how bebcause we cant realy know)and not by a long time process like evolution. the evidence fully suppot that and we still have zero empirical evidence for evolution so far in this discussion.

Why could it not have come from a couple of modifications of Hyracotherium?

sure its possible by a designer. but since we have no evidence that its realy happen we dont need to believe it.

If you know of a study that shows fish that are far from the path of humans that show unexpected gene similarity to humans, please produce the study and we will look at it.

why we need to discuss it? talkorigin made a clear prediction if evolution is false. and we indeed find such a thing:

Shark, human proteins are surprisingly similar | Cornell Chronicle

“We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish”

or:

Genes of elephant shark closer to human than zebrafish

"Interestingly, the human and elephant shark genomes exhibit a higher degree of synteny and sequence conservation than human and teleost fish (zebrafish and fugu) genomes, even though humans are more closely related to teleost fishes than to the elephant shark"

lets face it: talkorigin dont know what they are talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

its very similar since in both case we are talking about designed genomes that were made by a design process. so it didnt take millions of years and this is the main point here.

Wait, you had told us that you thought animals were probably made over a period of hundreds of millions of years, with the fossil record as evidence of the order. Are you now changing your mind?

Do you or do you not think different animals were probably made over a long period of hundreds of millions of years?

Do you or do you not think the fossil record is an indication of the order they were made? Were mammals made hundreds of millions of years after trilobites?

Do you or do you not think that the first Eohippus were made close to the time of the first Hyracotherium, as the fossil record indicates?

see above. im not sure about the zebra case but i do think that many creatures were made by a designer at once

I am not asking you if you think zebras were made instantaneously.

You have stated that all zebras, horses and Eohippus probably came from a common ancestor. Do you or do you not still believe this? Please answer clearly. Evasions do not facilitate communication.

There is nothing close to a zebra that has been found over 5 million years old. But there are probably thousands of known Eohippus greater than 50 million years old. How is it that you say they both came from the same ancestor when there must have been no zebras 50 million years ago, and no Eohippus anywhere close to the time of Zebras? Did Eohippus or its kin evolve into zebra?

sure its possible by a designer. but since we have no evidence that its realy happen we dont need to believe it.

Hyracotherium existed about the time of Eohippus, and they were nearly identical. You think the creation of Eohippus was instantaneous. I get that. I am not asking you if you think it was instantaneous. I am asking you if you think it is possible that God took the nearly identical DNA of the Hyracotherium and made a few (instantaneous) changes to make the Eohippus. Do you or do you not think it is possible God did this?

 

[PsychoSarah]

evolution may had about 10^60 tries since the earth history.

Where are you even getting that number from? One cannot quantify how many times evolution has occurred (especially given that its a continuous process, not an incremental one). Even if every organism that had ever lived had the same mutation rate, one can't even quantify how many organisms have ever been alive in our planet's history, so that's not quantifiable either.

how many it is from a space of about 4^1000 different combinations?

-_- not all organisms have the same DNA length, and all mutations are not equally likely. Plus, since only what survives and reproduces persists, selective pressures eliminate the most disadvantageous mutations of each generation. We are what happened to survive.

It's like when people argue that evolution is like a lottery, acting as if 10^a high number of numbers in perfect order would have to appear all at once in exactly 1 way for life to succeed, when in reality, we are just 1 way of winning that happened to occur. One cannot calculate the chances of "winning a lottery" when we can't quantify all the combinations that can win.

 

[Heissonear]

Seriously?? Lemme highlight it for you:

Why do we not see other materials organizing and evolving into structures of use?

Why only the so called biochemistry you conclude "it happened"?

Gravity, radiation, thermal cycle conditions, soils in mechanical meshing, and such to derive better structures by materials and natural processes for select plants to grow, or animals to proliferate.

But we have zip from natural processes and materials towards generating structures and evolved masses for life forms.

Only caves produced by water dissolution of minerals in the bedrock.

Get our sense of "specialized replication" only uses biomolecules? And very intense complex reaction form such in open system condition (heat and salinity cycling), influx of metal ions and salts, flux in acidity, flux in van der Waal and dipole surface charge from surface-force-dominated particles that are less than 200 nm in size, ..........

 

[doubtingmerle]

both can be change by a natural process ( a car can change its color by a natural process for instance). so what make you think that a car cant evolve into a truck via natural process given millions of years? according to evolution it should be possible.

See Could cars reproduce?.