the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

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

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

first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.

 

[xianghua]

If anything, it would be "evidence" for HUMAN design.
But such a watch does not exist

but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?

 

[xianghua]

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.

incorrect. most trucks have a mudflap and most cars dont. most trucks have big wheels and most cars dont. many trucks have a reverse beeper and most cars dont (if any). although those traits can be exist in cars usually they arent. the dolphin example is exceptional rather then the rule so its irrelevant, otherwise you will need to include the exceptional against evolution like in the shark case i mention. but you dont. right?

No, convergence does not disprove nested hierarchy.

of course it does since it doesnt fit with the nested hierarchy. this is why they call it convergent evolution.

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.

so where you draw the limit for convergent evolution? by 5 shared traits? 10? 15? you must put a number. otherwise any number is possible by convergent and we can claim (theoretically) that even a chimp can be closer to a cat then to human and that their similar morphology is the result of convergent rather then a common descent.

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

see above.

 

[xianghua]

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.

are you saying that a dolphin or a whale cant smell because they have genes for air scent?

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?

actually human (or at least many land mammals) has many genes that dont exist in amphibian:

Orphan gene - Wikipedia

"Estimates of the percentage of genes which are orphans varies enormously between species and between studies; 10-30% is a commonly cited figure"

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?

actually this kidney (called pronephros) is essential for the development of the adult kidneys:

Pronephros - Wikipedia

"Despite this transient appearance in mammals, the pronephros is essential for the development of the adult kidneys. The duct of the mesonephros forms the Wolffian duct and ureter of the adult kidney. The embryonic kidney and its derivatives also produces the inductive signals that trigger formation of the adult kidney."

so creation can explain it just fine.

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.

even if its true, the fact that many animals do have new organs prove that they most evolve them somehow. so if they cant evolve them stepwise it means that evolution is wrong. i gave you a simple example like a motion system. even you as intelligent designer cant add a single part to make a motion system for an organ. you need at least several parts to begin with. so such a system cant evolve stepwise.

 

[dad]

first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.

? How many new species of tigers have we seen in the last 100 years? 1000 years?

 

[loveofourlord]

are you saying that a dolphin or a whale cant smell because they have genes for air scent?




actually human (or at least many land mammals) has many genes that dont exist in amphibian:

Orphan gene - Wikipedia

"Estimates of the percentage of genes which are orphans varies enormously between species and between studies; 10-30% is a commonly cited figure"




actually this kidney (called pronephros) is essential for the development of the adult kidneys:

Pronephros - Wikipedia

"Despite this transient appearance in mammals, the pronephros is essential for the development of the adult kidneys. The duct of the mesonephros forms the Wolffian duct and ureter of the adult kidney. The embryonic kidney and its derivatives also produces the inductive signals that trigger formation of the adult kidney."

so creation can explain it just fine.



even if its true, the fact that many animals do have new organs prove that they most evolve them somehow. so if they cant evolve them stepwise it means that evolution is wrong. i gave you a simple example like a motion system. even you as intelligent designer cant add a single part to make a motion system for an organ. you need at least several parts to begin with. so such a system cant evolve stepwise.

nahhhh, dolphins smell, but it's smelling through water which use seperate genes, probably more related to taste, though not sure on that. their blowhole/nose has little/no scent ability.

and no creation can't, because there would be no need to do the earlier ones to signal the adult. It's that way because due to it's history to get the adult mamal kidney's it has to go through earlier stages, a creator could just make a functioning kidney in humans and other mamals and such from the start.

It's akin to making a muffler in a modern car, but you have to first build a mostly functioning 1910 version, and the mostly functioning 1940's version, breaking each one up before building the final one, sure you might use parts and 30% or what ever of the previous is in the final, but thats not how a engineer would make things. Again it's akin to using all the parts for a lambergini in a ford truck, just half are welded into place.

Again you ignored what I said and scientists have said about movement, there are many easy ways to imagine it, plus there is no such thing as "the bacterial flagellum" there are dozens of kinds, some more complicated, some les then the example behe used, there are precursor type things such as the type 2 secratory system *think thats the name* I can easily imagine ways of making the flagellum using just the motion of the creature.

Simple things such as.

ameoba that moves by extending it's parts, maybe something akin to the flatworm that uses a ripple to move better, the ripples are more pronounced by ridges or bumps in one, these become more pronounced over time, possibly thinning to be more useful, still going with the ripple type which I think some bacteria still have, then add in the method for these flagellum to move beyond the ripple and so on.

each step has a use, and each next step is better, it doesn't require a huge amount of imagination.

what good is half a flagellum, it's still better then none, as the flagellum improve there is less need for other locamotive means so those disapear, and so on.

It's like the eye, it was once used to try to disprove evolution, except we have shown the step wise means to make the eye that exists now in nature so that went away. It would be interesting to do a long term study on locomotion in bacteria if it's not done yet, and see if we can find a simular set of stages throughout their kingdom.

 

[dad]

each step has a use, and each next step is better, it doesn't require a huge amount of imagination.
.

False. It requires pure imagination. Yes flatworms move and other little creatures move. That does not mean they are a 'step'! Movement is a sign of life.

In man's little machines, movement generally is also a sign of being made by a creator rather than being self made. Looking at a machine we should see that it is created.

 

[loveofourlord]

False. It requires pure imagination. Yes flatworms move and other little creatures move. That does not mean they are a 'step'! Movement is a sign of life.

In man's little machines, movement generally is also a sign of being made by a creator rather than being self made. Looking at a machine we should see that it is created.

we are talking about methods for moving, just as the steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps.

 

[doubtingmerle]

first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.

Can you name one other person besides you that says that a lion and a domestic cat are basically the same creature?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?

Ah, back to nonsense questions. We have spent months addressing your nonsense questions, and yet you refuse to answer ours. If you refuse to answer nonsense questions, why should we answer yours?

Here is my next nonsense question for you: if the moon had a free will, would it be a person?

I think all here agree that your question is total nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

.



so where you draw the limit for convergent evolution? by 5 shared traits? 10? 15?

I think you will agree with me that I have answered this many times in the last two weeks. If I answered again you will ignore my answer again, yes?

 

[Speedwell]

we are talking about methods for moving, just as the steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps.

Xianghua denies that there can be evolutionary steps.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?

If "God" came and told you evolution is real, will you believe him/her/it?
That is a stupid question. You have not provided any necessary information. Where did it come from? Which kingdom does it belong to? Its traits? Is it similar to any other species?

 

[dad]

we are talking about methods for moving, just as the steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps.

No. Not at all. You are talking a few samples from a partial fossil record, and trying to connect the dots without God and creation.

 

[dad]

Xianghua denies that there can be evolutionary steps.

Just because there can be does not mean that that is all that was involved.

 

[loveofourlord]

No. Not at all. You are talking a few samples from a partial fossil record, and trying to connect the dots without God and creation.

what fossils, i'm talking about things that exist now.

 

[doubtingmerle]

incorrect. most trucks have a mudflap and most cars dont. most trucks have big wheels and most cars dont. many trucks have a reverse beeper and most cars dont (if any). although those traits can be exist in cars usually they arent. the dolphin example is exceptional rather then the rule so its irrelevant, otherwise you will need to include the exceptional against evolution like in the shark case i mention. but you dont. right?

I won't even try to unpack this word salad. If you wish to regard a dolphin as an exceptional fish, then you obviously misunderstand the basics of biology. Dolphins are mammals, as has been explained to you multiple times here. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of biology. I understand there is a language issue here, and I appreciate your attempts to communicate in our language, but this is ridiculous. If you really are interested in understanding, then find a way to learn the basics of biology. Are there no biology books in your language you can read? If not, you may want to start with elementary biology in English and work your way up to college level. We have spent multiple posts explaining it to you. You could also go back and read those posts.

 

[joinfree]

s

so basically you are saying that a watch isnt an evidence for design. i guess that most peoples will claims otherwise.

But not all "people": LOL,

 

[dad]

what fossils, i'm talking about things that exist now.

I see. You didn't make that clear when you said what I responded to..

" ...steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps."

Explain what 'steps for the eye' we see today? Let's see this fairly good evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I won't even try to unpack this word salad. If you wish to regard a dolphin as an exceptional fish, then you obviously misunderstand the basics of biology. Dolphins are mammals, as has been explained to you multiple times here. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of biology. I understand there is a language issue here, and I appreciate your attempts to communicate in our language, but this is ridiculous. If you really are interested in understanding, then find a way to learn the basics of biology. Are there no biology books in your language you can read? If not, you may want to start with elementary biology in English and work your way up to college level. We have spent multiple posts explaining it to you. You could also go back and read those posts.

Given the level of English in the papers he links to I suspect the "English is not my native" is more of a scam than a reality.