the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

simply wrong. we can arrange them in a general hierarchy: cars, vans and trucks. very simple.

That's not a nested hierarchy.

The "nested" part, is kind of important.

 

[Speedwell]

It's not a hierarchy of any kind. It's just a lie about the developmental history of motor vehicles.

 

[Skreeper]

since according to evolution small steps over time will become a big step, then this question actually very relevant to evolution.

Do they not teach addition in Israel? How could you possibly object to the accumulation of small steps resulting in a big step?

 

[xianghua]

So your question is about the principle of accumulation?

You need to have it demonstrated that the continued accumulation of small things will end up becoming a big thing?

That 1+1+1+1+1+1+...+1+1+1+1 will eventually add up to billions?
That the continued accumulation of moving 1 inch at a time will eventually add up to moving from many miles?

great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.

 

[DogmaHunter]

great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.

That is not at all what I said.

It seems your imagination is going beserk again.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. i will try to do that simple. you can find the full paper from 2004 by searching the pdf file. what is your main objection to that paper actually?

My main objections are as follows:
1. It's too old; our understanding of what proteins are functional has vastly improved in the time since it was. And wait, 2004? I could have sworn the date for the article you linked was 2008, and 2004 would make it even more behind! Regardless, their conclusions are based on data too old to be representative of our modern understanding of genetics.
2. You misinterpreted their conclusions entirely; they concluded that every functional region within a certain size range has likely developed within the evolutionary history of the planet. Not "all functional proteins have existed at some point" as you seem to claim. Even if that was their claim, organisms have many genes, not just one, so it would not mean that every possible viable organism has come into existence.
3. You've abandoned internal consistency. The conclusions you have made in this particular debate conflict with your previous arguments entirely, and in no way support an ID position in general. If anything, this sounds like a poorly made argument for naturalistic evolution (by arguing that all functional genes seen today were an inevitability purely by the number of organisms that have existed in Earth's history).

 

[Heissonear]

great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.

It is not over their head in what you state, but not in line supporting their pathway of Evolution on Earth.

What you present is very clear.

 

[Heissonear]

That is not at all what I said.

It seems your imagination is going beserk again.

He interpreted correctly. It appears not to the pathways you think most about.

Having only biochemicals have a pathway to increase in complexity is your Faith.

Where do other chemicals and materials do such. See, it is not in what you normally think. But just as real.

Where is the grandoise pathway of elements and coumpounds of U, Ti, Sc, Pb, montmorillionite, serpentine, ........... increasing in complexity in molecular pathways - and show us what pathways of increasing in complexity have generated by evolution.

An atomic bomb or break linings for a Toyota Tundra?

Look at what you present, another time.

 

[Heissonear]

It's not a hierarchy of any kind. It's just a lie about the developmental history of motor vehicles.

We'ill give you another try.

Singular-pathway development is not biochemical only bound.

Through Intelligence we see Developmental Hierarchy among many things with ease.

The patent literature has tons of such to learn by.

Even about motorcycles, metallurgy used, valve train design, spark intensity and timing, ........

 

[Heissonear]

Who said Intelligence is not required towards many things we see today?

Some think inherent properties of atoms and molecules can only Evolve Complex Biochemicals and Lifeforms.

No, such requires Intelligence of a being.

It is Intelligence that we see in materials and objects become more complex over time.

 

[Speedwell]

We'ill give you another try.

Singular-pathway development is not biochemical only bound.

Through Intelligence we see Developmental Hierarchy among many things with ease.

The patent literature has tons of such to learn by.

Even about motorcycles, metallurgy used, valve train design, spark intensity and timing, ........

View attachment 220613

I was referring to Xianghua's diagram in particular. It does not reflect the actual developmental hierarchy of motor vehicles.

 

[PsychoSarah]

great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.

I could convert a car into an airplane one piece at a time without the car being entirely useless at any stage. Why wouldn't a person be able to do that? It just wouldn't be by the same process by which living organisms evolve, since they evolve over generations across a population, not individually.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And how did you get the numbers for the 4^1000 please?

 

[Kylie]

great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.

Didn't I go through all this with you earlier? Do you ignore points that have been shown to you because they disagree with your ideas?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you ignore points that have been shown to you because they disagree with your ideas?

That appears to be his strategy, yes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

xianghua, I am still waiting for your evidence that the first member of the horse family came about by some means other than evolution. I have presented 29 evidences for evolution. What is your evidence it happened by some other way?

You appear to think any way is possible, as long as it isn't evolution.

OK, so you are apparently open to the view that a dino got sick and spit out the first known member of the horse family, Eohippus. But you presented no evidence this actually happened.

And you appear to be open to the view that parts of an exploding watermelon coagulated to make the first Eohippus. But you presented no evidence this actually happened.

And you appear to be open to the view that the first Eohippus just popped up out of thin air. But you presented no evidence this actually happened.

But when I ask you if the earliest Eohippus could have come about by changes in the DNA of an almost identical contemporary animal, Hyrocatherium, suddenly you oppose it.

Can you explain to me why you are open to the idea that the first Eohippus came about as pieces of an exploding watermelon coagulated, but not open to a few DNA changes in a Hyrcoatherium?

no. do you have evidence that he indeed changed one into another one?

Uh, yes I gave you twenty nine evidences for evolution. I have told you that many times. And you know this will be my answer, yes? So why do you ask the same question, when you already know the answer?

You have not offered one single piece of evidence for any of the other 3, except for two feeble attempts at justifying the third option. Your first argument for option 3 is that you claim there is no evidence for argument 4. Uh, even if there was no evidence for option 4, that would not be evidence for option 3.

If lack of evolution for another view proves #3, does lack of evidence for #1 prove #4 (evolution)?

Your other argument for option 3 is that it had to be instantaneous since the Hoover Dam was instantaneous. That is a bogus argument because a) the Hoover Dam was not instantaneous, b) other developments might take longer than the Hoover Dam, and c) even if valid, and it had to be instantaneous (like the Hoover Dam) a God could have made gene mutation as quick as the other 3.

So I don't regard those as even remotely reasonable. So lets add up all the reasonable arguments presented so far for how the first Eohippus came into existence.

1) Sick dino spit one out -- 0 evidences
2) Coagulation of exploding watermelon -- 0 evidences
3) Popping into existence out of nothing -- 0 evidences
4) Mutations and selection -- 29 evidences.

I think I am winning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He interpreted correctly

I think I know better then the both of you what my point was and what I said.

Having only biochemicals have a pathway to increase in complexity is your Faith.

You're not making any sense.
We are talking about biological evolution. It operates within a well defined scope and in a well-defined manner.

When discussing biological evolution, the discussion needs to remain within that scope. Whenever you move beyond that scope, you're no longer talking about biological evolution.

Seems rather obvious.

Where do other chemicals and materials do such.

Again, we are talking about the process that LIVING BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS are subject to. If you want to talk about other things, be my guest, but the process under discussion deals with LIVING BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.

If you are going to state that this process, which deals with LIVING BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS, doesn't apply to things that are not living biological organisms, then you are certainly correct.

But if you are going to state that and then pretend as if it is an argument against the existance of said process, then I can only lift my eyebrows, shrug my shoulders and walk away.

Not sure how I should respond to that, other then by pointing out how fallacious and invalid it is.

Where is the grandoise pathway of elements and coumpounds of U, Ti, Sc, Pb, montmorillionite, serpentine, ........... increasing in complexity in molecular pathways - and show us what pathways of increasing in complexity have generated by evolution.

The biological theory of evolution, deals with biology. The study of living biological organisms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

View attachment 220618
View attachment 220620

I wasn't aware that motorcycles are living biological organisms.
Ow wait... they aren't.

Who would have thought ey, that a biological theory that explains a process that living biological organisms are subject to, doesn't apply to things that aren't living biological organisms?

 

[xianghua]

My main objections are as follows:
1. It's too old; our understanding of what proteins are functional has vastly improved in the time since it was. And wait, 2004? I could have sworn the date for the article you linked was 2008, and 2004 would make it even more behind! Regardless, their conclusions are based on data too old to be representative of our modern understanding of genetics.
2. You misinterpreted their conclusions entirely; they concluded that every functional region within a certain size range has likely developed within the evolutionary history of the planet. Not "all functional proteins have existed at some point" as you seem to claim. Even if that was their claim, organisms have many genes, not just one, so it would not mean that every possible viable organism has come into existence.
3. You've abandoned internal consistency. The conclusions you have made in this particular debate conflict with your previous arguments entirely, and in no way support an ID position in general. If anything, this sounds like a poorly made argument for naturalistic evolution (by arguing that all functional genes seen today were an inevitability purely by the number of organisms that have existed in Earth's history).

? i talk about axe work on beta-lactamase. he conclude (base on his work and others works too) that the chance to get this specific function is about on in 10^77 tries. how the fact that this wrok from 2004 is any relevant to this result? 10^77 is a huge number so its seems very unlikely to move from one functional gene into a totally different one.

 

[xianghua]

I could convert a car into an airplane one piece at a time without the car being entirely useless at any stage.

sure. but can you do that when every extra part is also functional? for instance: if we want do get a jet engine you cant do that by adding only one or 2 parts. a jet engine is very different from a car engine.