the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

but since evolution has no target its not the same at all. and this is why genetic algorithm cant represent a real scenario.

LOL!

In reality, genetic algorithms are used in verious industries every day to optimise systems. Because they work.

Next time you step on a Boeing 747, remind yourself that it's fuel distribution system is the result of a GA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if i will show you a reasonable explanation for the existence of this trait under the design model, you will agree that the design model is better since it can make a prediction about this trait?

What prediction?
And how does the "design model" unambigously produce that prediction?

(ps: your answer should include a falsifiable definition of "design")

 

[DogmaHunter]

we can say the same for fishes and mammals. a fish is more similar to other fish then to a mammal since both have designs suited for marine environment.

1. ever seen a dolphin or whale? Ask a child if it is more like a land mammal, like a cow, or like a fish. See what the answer is.

2. we can not say the same for living things, because cars and trucks aren't living things and thus not subject to the processes of biological evolution.

How many times must it be repeated?

actually shark can do that too (live birth) and many shark also have a placenta:

Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. I. Morphology and cellular transport at the fetal attachment site. - PubMed - NCBI

so again your nested hierarchy is falling apart.

Sharks do not have mammalian features, nore does the linked paper suggest such. It seems you're lying again.

see above. its simply wrong since even according to evolution placenta suppose to evolve by convergent evolution. this fact alone break the suppose hierarchy

It does not. That's just you inventing stuff again.

. so again: when we find a strcture that doesnt fit with the hierarchy they just "solve" it by convergent evolution. some mammals like the platypus actually laying eggs. so by this logic human suppose to be colser to shark then to the platypus. an evolutionery absurd.

What you call "logic" is actually just the result of sheer ignorance.

the fact that even a car can has large wheels prove that this trait is independent.

Cars aren't biological organisms.

 

[xianghua]

I don't choose a target. The process of evolution has no long term target beyond the increased fitness of the next generation.

you must do that. otherwise they will be just random numbers.

 

[xianghua]

If there are reasons for dolphins to have air scent, then thats something evolution would use

so evolution is true in any case?

but there is no reason for say 4% of the human genes to be devoted to scent when we can't use the. Even less so, if they serve no purpose on a dolphin.

so why evolution evolved them at the first place if we dont need them? the design model can explain it by degeneration. like a broken mirror in a car.

Funny we've done that before. There was the e-coli experiment where the ability to use a different source of energy happened multiple times, they found that the bacteria in one group was using it, went back to before it showed up and let them evolve again and it happened again. So it's not like it's impossible, and generally once life is there, most genes are just improving whats already there.

actually some traits are very simple and some arent. a zit in the forehead is a new trait. but its a simple trait and no one will argue its evidence for evolution.

Take the platypus venom, it's a gene duplication of a imune system gene that mutated,

they still different. how many mutations we need to change one into another? are they functional without any other parts?

There is other experiments where they knock out the ability for some bacteria to move by breaking a important gene, leave them in a place with food, but a large gap towards other food when that runs out and surprise surprise we see them move, even though the gene for movement was broken, and it wasn't fixing the broken gene, it was using a new novel way around the broken gene.

so if we will remove a flagellum from a bacteria with a flalgellum it will evolve a flagellum easily in real time?

 

[xianghua]

Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?
How was it made? A watch is a human concept, even if it was found in nature, it would follow evolutionary processes and is not an evidence for design just because of similarity in morphology. Read up on analogous organs. Seriously, do it.

so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:

wood watch - Google Search:

 

[xianghua]

Next time you step on a Boeing 747, remind yourself that it's fuel distribution system is the result of a GA.

its also the result of human design. not evolution. remember that too.

 

[dad]

Your inability to comprehend what "merrit" means in this context, simply bars your from having any valuable input on this topic.

As much as you think ignorance is merit about what time is and how it might be in the far universe and how that impacts the math and models....it is what it is.

The null hypothesis does not need any evidence.

Lurkers...in case you are not familiar with this, all it means is that they feel their religion must be believed for no reason. Since science cannot prove it either way, they demand that their belief is accepted since they can't prove anything it isn't so!

You are the one who's making the claim that the universe was different in the past. Upto you to demonstrate or support that.

Nt really. I have no idea what the far universe is like. I am saying that nature on earth was different probably, and that science doesn't know.

As for the issue of time in the distant universe they do not know if that exists either as we speak. So what we see could be in the past, or future, or present! It could be of any size from microscopic to bigger than they thought. That means that you cannot use imagined great time from light from stars, in case you missed that.

Science can't falsify the unfalsifiable.

It can't know what it doesn't know.

The undetectable 7-headed dragon included.

I can detect that old boy, even in science. Look for the trademark denial of creation, and you detect that spirit.

A more accurate way to express that would be "scenario's that actually are verifiable and supported by evidence". That your particular religious belief isn't verifiable, supportable, testable, falsifiable... is not science's fault.

Yes, my belief in the bible is verified to the hilt for time immemorial. The fact science doesn't know either what nature used to exist on earth, or whether time as we know it here exists in deep space is also verified by your fail.

Really? So for science to be taken seriously by you, it would have to allow undemonstrable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupportable claims?

It would need to admit it doesn't know it all, and has been making stuff up on beliefs. Stuff they cannot demonstrate, falsify, verify or support. Stuff that opposes the truth.

It's kind of telling when you need to redefine science to also include pseudo-science, in order to be able to defend your religious beliefs.

That is what you do by trying to lump in origins sciences with actual science. That is just doing violence to the word science.

All fossils could disappear instantly and the case for evolution would be as strong as ever, because of the genetic record alone.

Most creatures and man are no in the record early on so it has no merit. Your belief that the reason we are no there as fossils is because we were not on the planet or alive is religion. You just try to imagine the same nature existed. No. You have no support for that belief.

 

[dad]

lets check both scenarios. first: we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching new species evolve in real time

so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years.

one of the largest family on earth is the curculionidae which contain almost 100,000 species. so if we start with 2 species then after about one generation of a speciation event (100 years) we will get 4 different species. and after another generation of speciation we will get 8 and so on. so we only need about less then 20 generation of speciation to get more then 100,000 different species (2^20) . or about 2000 years. if you see any problem note me and we will continue.

So you do feel that evolution happens fast. In this nature.

If no one else deals with that, I might when I get time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its also the result of human design. not evolution. remember that too.

Never said otherwise.
I just said that GA's optimized that fuel distribution system.

GA's did a better job then humans at optimizing it.

Because GA's work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lurkers...in case you are not familiar with this, all it means is that they feel their religion must be believed for no reason.

Nope.

It means that the default, is the default.
Your "different state past", departs from the default. You're the one claiming the past was different. Demonstrate your claim.

Since science cannot prove it either way, they demand that their belief is accepted since they can't prove anything it isn't so!

The null hypothesis doesn't require any proving.
There is no reason to assume the laws of nature were different in the past, so why would we assume that they were?

Nt really.

Yes really.

I have no idea what the far universe is like

Then stop claiming it was different.

I am saying that nature on earth was different probably

Why?

As for the issue of time in the distant universe they do not know if that exists either as we speak. So what we see could be in the past, or future, or present! It could be of any size from microscopic to bigger than they thought. That means that you cannot use imagined great time from light from stars, in case you missed that.

LOL!
Another variation of "last thursday-ism".

Yes, my belief in the bible is verified to the hilt for time immemorial. The fact science doesn't know either what nature used to exist on earth, or whether time as we know it here exists in deep space is also verified by your fail.

LOL!
But you're "not making any claims" ha?

"science doesn't know, therefor my bizar religious beliefs are correct!"

uhu

It would need to admit it doesn't know it all, and has been making stuff up on beliefs.

perhaps you should take your own advice.

Most creatures and man are no in the record early on so it has no merit. Your belief that the reason we are no there as fossils is because we were not on the planet or alive is religion. You just try to imagine the same nature existed. No. You have no support for that belief.

Try forming a coherent sentence.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:

wood watch - Google Search:

If anything, it would be "evidence" for HUMAN design.
But such a watch does not exist. We don't know how it works without a battery, and a watch shows time as is perceived by HUMANS. Plants don't have a 12 hour clock. They don't have a battery.
Your argument is completely arbitrary and really doesn't prove anything. Hypothetical scenarios can be made to explain everything, but without evidence, ....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like how a wheel can be used for transport, but when used as a pulley, the wheel can be used for an entirely different purpose.

Yup - and combine the two, and you have caterpillar (tank) tracks. Yay for functional flexibility!

 

[loveofourlord]

so evolution is true in any case?



so why evolution evolved them at the first place if we dont need them? the design model can explain it by degeneration. like a broken mirror in a car.



actually some traits are very simple and some arent. a zit in the forehead is a new trait. but its a simple trait and no one will argue its evidence for evolution.




they still different. how many mutations we need to change one into another? are they functional without any other parts?



so if we will remove a flagellum from a bacteria with a flalgellum it will evolve a flagellum easily in real time?

why would evolution use 4% of our genes as scent? Hmmm.....why would that happen....oh wait maybe the 600 million years of evolution before we became humans? But we lost many of them as humans, probably I would suspect partly due to our smaller noses, and more relience on things like sight and such. just as the explanation for why do dolphins have genes for air scent, because it's left overs from their ancestors like pakisetus and such. That used to live on land, but as it switched to water it needed different ways to scent, since the nostrils became the blowhole.

here is the problem you have, least above fish level how many changes are there from amphibian to humans are there that are new and require whole new changes?

You say are they functional without other parts, can I ask what parts? what are these parts that humans have that amphibians didn't have at least precursors for? sure our hearts, lungs and other body parts are more efficient.

though I can give you one example of drastic changes to one organ that happened, and actually can be seen in the human development, one of the examples of actual recapitulation.

The kidney's, during development, they drasticly change 3 times, and in one case completly restart their growth, going from earlier versions in evolution to our current, kinda weird to do that, evolution can explain it, but how does creationism?

you can see it here.

well the flegellum wouldn't likly evolve easily, but you might get it if you knocked out the gene some how, as it might repair the damage you did. But we know that the flagellum isn't 1 thing, it's many different kinds that are some more complicted, some less, and has other variations like the famous type 2 secretion system and such. Evolution doesn't require the flagellum to be the starting point, it can use other things. Just with the eye, what good is half a eye, it's still better then no eye. What good is half a wing, it allows for some gliding and so on.

evolution doesn't have something getting a new feature over night like you think, it's using older stuff and modifying it. Again from amphibian to human, most of the changes are to existing structures and things, you have some new proteins that have some effects but thats not the same thing as suddenly requiring a whole new limb, or organ and such.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:

wood watch - Google Search:

Ah, we are back to nonsense questions. I have one for you: If the moon is not the moon is it the moon?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Never said otherwise.
I just said that GA's optimized that fuel distribution system.

GA's did a better job then humans at optimizing it.

Because GA's work.

Ever get the feeling you are talking to a wall?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How many times must it be repeated?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

 

[pitabread]

Ever get the feeling you are talking to a wall?

A wall might be preferable. At least walls don't respond with complete nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we can say the same for fishes and mammals. a fish is more similar to other fish then to a mammal since both have designs suited for marine environment.

No, fish are not missing most defining features of mammals because they live in water. Dolphins do quite fine in the water with mammal features. Fish differ from dolphins because of their evolutionary heritage.

Trucks are different. Trucks differ from cars because, by definition, they carry large loads, and need those features to carry large loads.

actually shark can do that too (live birth) and many shark also have a placenta:

Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. I. Morphology and cellular transport at the fetal attachment site. - PubMed - NCBI

so again your nested hierarchy is falling apart.

No, convergence does not disprove nested hierarchy.

How many times must we tell you that nested hierarchies are overwhelmingly statistically significant, even with convergence? To defeat that you must show it is not statistically significant. You won't defeat it by citing examples of convergence.

some mammals like the platypus actually laying eggs. so by this logic human suppose to be colser to shark then to the platypus. an evolutionery absurd.

...And birds are close to house flies? Sorry convergence on one feature does not override all we know about hierarchy.

the fact that even a car can has large wheels prove that this trait is independent.

No, the fact that some cars have big wheels does not prove trucks do not need big wheels.

The fact that a truck is defined as a vehicle to carry large loads requires that all trucks have wheels sufficient to carry large loads. Having sufficient wheels is not independent of the requirement to carry large loads.

So when you show that vehicles designed to carry large loads have designs to carry large loads, that is nothing more than a tautology.

 

[dad]

Nope.

It means that the default, is the default.
Your "different state past", departs from the default. You're the one claiming the past was different. Demonstrate your claim.

I do not need to demonstrate the unknown. Your beliefs are not the default unless you mean your default.

The null hypothesis doesn't require any proving.

You beliefs do. Otherwise they don't make it to some default.

There is no reason to assume the laws of nature were different in the past, so why would we assume that they were?

There is no reason to assume the laws of nature were the same in the past, so why would we assume that they were? Especially when God says life was very different here.

Then stop claiming it was different.

Stop claiming either that you know they were not different, or that we must default to unbelief and ignorance.

Why?

History of God and man, and the fac science doesn't know.

But you're "not making any claims" ha?

I am claiming science doesn't know, and that is demonstrated many times. So we have beliefs, and I see no reason to adopt what I see as baseless, godless, clueless beliefs for no reason at all.

"science doesn't know, therefor my bizar religious beliefs are correct!"

Science IS bizarre religion.

ot sure on the position of the godless on the topic here either. It seems to basically be..'we will not acknowledge that cars and watches were made, rather than self formed, because they are not identical to living things that show some evolving?