the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

I do not need to demonstrate the unknown.

You do, if you make knowledge claims about it. Like you are doing.

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

No. The laws of nature being the way they are, is the default because we observe them being the way they are.

Claiming that they are not (or were not) like we observer them to be, is what deviates from the default and which requires supportive evidence. Got any? Guess not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

No such watch exists nore would it exist. It's been explained countless times.

It's time you stop arguing against established science by pointing at imaginary fictional entities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

We can only include that which can be shown to play a role.

Your god of choice will be included the day you can demonstrate in verifiable ways that this god plays any kind of a factor in any part of the process.

Until then, he gets the same role as the undetectable flying 7-headed dragon.

 

[xianghua]

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

the tiger itself is a species that contain several sub- species. its also endangered species so i dont think its a good indication. and remember that i talked about insect and not about big animal like a mammal.

 

[xianghua]

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.

if a dolphin can smell then what is the problem actually?

a creator could just make a functioning kidney in humans and other mamals and such from the start.

first: how do you know its not functional? second: human has another temporary kidney called mesonephros. and this temporary kidney actually does have a function.

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.

lets see. can you add a single part to a compass and make it move like a watch?

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.

i dont think so about the eye too. but lets first deal with the motion system.

 

[dad]

You do, if you make knowledge claims about it. Like you are doing.

Why would you think little man would need to know how God created, and what the unknown far universe was like in hidden ways?

The claims were His, and the book is proven true already. Since you help demonstrate that science doesn't know either way, science has nothing to say about it.
All we have left is the pretentious, puffed up and platitudes proceeding from the made up closed minds and religion of so called science.

I prefer fact, evidence and reality, thanks.

No. The laws of nature being the way they are, is the default because we observe them being the way they are.

The forces and laws on earth are not even understood in any deep way by science. You repeating that they know the nature of the past is ridiculous.

Claiming that they are not (or were not) like we observer them to be, is what deviates from the default and which requires supportive evidence. Got any? Guess not.

The default, preferred beliefs of those who do not know, and also oppose the truth of Scripture frankly do not matter.

 

[xianghua]

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.

since you dont want to discuss this topic anymore i will sum up:

1) the original talkorigin claim was that if we will find many species with a trait that is shared between unrelated species then evolution will be in a real problem. since we indeed find many such cases talkorigin claim is totally false.
2) we have seen that even if we will find a nested hierarchy in designed objects it will not prove they evolved from each other. therefore even if nested hieriarchy exist in nature it will not be evidence for common descent.

 

[xianghua]

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?

lets say that this kind of watch will have living traits. like organic components (proteins, DNAׁ) and a self replication system.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would you think little man would need to know how God created, and what the unknown far universe was like in hidden ways?

You tell me.... you are the one making claims about how this god alledgelly created things.

The claims were His, and the book is proven true already

If by "proven" you mean "is just believed", sure.

Since you help demonstrate that science doesn't know either way, science has nothing to say about it.

And that includes the undetectable 7-headed dragon.

All we have left is the pretentious, puffed up and platitudes proceeding from the made up closed minds and religion of so called science.

Yes, yes... all made up.
How's that internet browsing device working out for you?

I prefer fact, evidence and reality, thanks.

ow, come on now.... We both know that this is not true.

The forces and laws on earth are not even understood in any deep way by science.

Yeah well... we can only concern ourselves with those things that we actually know and understand, right?

Otherwise, all of us are going to have to wrap ourselves in tin foil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon. He hates tin foil, you know?

You repeating that they know the nature of the past is ridiculous.

I'm not the one making fantastical claims about the past that fly in the face of observation.... That's what you are doing.

The default, preferred beliefs of those who do not know, and also oppose the truth of Scripture frankly do not matter.

You know what REALLY doesn't matter? The posts of a random dude on a random internet forum concerning his rather bizar religious beliefs that fly in the face of everything we know, understand and observe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

since you dont want to discuss this topic anymore i will sum up:

1) the original talkorigin claim was that if we will find many species with a trait that is shared between unrelated species then evolution will be in a real problem. since we indeed find many such cases talkorigin claim is totally false.

You forgot to clarify that it must be THE SAME trait. With the SAME underlying mechanics, genetics, etc.

But I understand... being intellectually honest would be a bit to devastating to your case, ha?

2) we have seen that even if we will find a nested hierarchy in designed objects it will not prove they evolved from each other.

You never once actually identified such a nested hierarchy.
Drawing 4 lines in paint and pasting random vehicles on it, isn't exactly valid as has been explained to you many times as well. But again, we understand your need to avoid being intellectually honest at all costs.

therefore even if nested hieriarchy exist in nature it will not be evidence for common descent.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to be able to sleep at night.

 

[dad]

the tiger itself is a species that contain several sub- species. its also endangered species so i dont think its a good indication. and remember that i talked about insect and not about big animal like a mammal.

When talking of all the kinds of animals in the world on an ark, we must talk about things bigger than bugs.

One small travel cage for one tiger is something like 16.25 square feet.

"The height of the cage must allow the animal to stand erect with its head extended. The length must permit it to lie in the prone position."

http://cza.nic.in/TRANSPORT 8.1.2008.pdf

With some 20 foot high giraffes, dinos, 33 species of tigers, bears, lions, cheetahs, kangaroos, dogs, horses, cows, oxen, pigs, sloths, etc etc etc...and in many cases there were not just 2, but seven of the kinds of each...that is too much square footage for the ark.

The available space on the ark was something like 100,000 sq feet.

What did Noah's Ark Look Like?



If only the created kinds were on the ark, and the species happened after the flood, that will work.

But that will not work in this nature, as I think the adapting and evolving would take too long.

 

[dad]

You tell me.... you are the one making claims about how this god alledgelly created things. If by "proven" you mean "is just believed", sure. And that includes the undetectable 7-headed dragon.
Yes, yes... all made up.
How's that internet browsing device working out for you?
ow, come on now.... We both know that this is not true.
Yeah well... we can only concern ourselves with those things that we actually know and understand, right?
Otherwise, all of us are going to have to wrap ourselves in tin foil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon. He hates tin foil, you know?
I'm not the one making fantastical claims about the past that fly in the face of observation.... That's what you are doing.
You know what REALLY doesn't matter? The posts of a random dude on a random internet forum concerning his rather bizar religious beliefs that fly in the face of everything we know, understand and observe.

You have a religion. Beliefs. If you are happy with them, fine. They neither fit the bible, nor can be supported with evidence.

You understand your beliefs, and think everything must fit them. No news here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have a religion.

I don't. You know what the word "atheist" means, yes?

Beliefs. If you are happy with them, fine

I don't hold beliefs based on wheter or not they make me "happy".

They neither fit the bible, nor can be supported with evidence.

I only hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.
I don't really care if they fit with a bronze-age religious text.

You understand your beliefs, and think everything must fit them. No news here.

I understand my beliefs yes. I don't just "hold them" for the sake of holding them. Like some other people.

 

[joinfree]

the tiger itself is a species that contain several sub- species. its also endangered species so i dont think its a good indication. and remember that i talked about insect and not about big animal like a mammal.

Let us go back to beginning of the thread; My contribution would be

The famous design-proof:
The Nature is more difficult to understand, than a watch. The latter must be designed, no way around the designer (because the watch is difficult to understand). So, the Nature is designed. Dude, do you argue, what when you would find the watch in the forest the Nature did it? You do argue. If we find the watch in the forest, there is ZERO probability, what the brainless Nature made it. Correct? If the brainless Nature made this watch, then the total Universe must be in total mess to balance the Entropy Law. Mine Religion has the answer: supernatural act of Creation, wonder, because the God is DIVINE one.

Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[dad]

I don't. You know what the word "atheist" means, yes?

What has that to do with the religion of science?

I don't hold beliefs based on wheter or not they make me "happy".

Not sure we care why you believe, just that you do.

I only hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

You only have evidence painted and tainted with your beliefs.

I don't really care if they fit with a bronze-age religious text.

Me either. You are entitled to any beliefs, however removed from the truth of God.

I understand my beliefs yes. I don't just "hold them" for the sake of holding them. Like some other people.

Long as we understand you have them and that you think they should be named science for some reason.

 

[loveofourlord]

if a dolphin can smell then what is the problem actually?




first: how do you know its not functional? second: human has another temporary kidney called mesonephros. and this temporary kidney actually does have a function.




lets see. can you add a single part to a compass and make it move like a watch?




i dont think so about the eye too. but lets first deal with the motion system.

wow....do you not understand. the problem is for creationist and cdesign proponents to explain why your idea of god would create dolphins giving the illusion of them being evolved from land animals, by having meaningless scent genes that would only have been useful in their past if they lived on land.

Again, the kidney has a purpose because it has to be that way due to evolutionary past, explain why like with the scent genes would your god use something that hints at evolution why not make a single kidney that doesn't have to go through previous evolutionary stages? It's wasteful.

And we can tell because we know when genes are not functional, the transcribing mechanism and such no longer works, and as the dolphins lost their need for air scent, degredation of such genes had no harmful effects.

the eye is simple, a partial eye works better then none, a eye that can't move is still useful, a eye that can move a ittle has more beneficial and so on. goes back to the old, "What good is half a eye." well it's better then a quarter of a eye.

 

[dad]

wow....do you not understand. the problem is for creationist and cdesign proponents to explain why your idea of god would create dolphins giving the illusion of them being evolved from land animals, by having meaningless scent genes that would only have been useful in their past if they lived on land.

Before jumping to conclusions we might ask if some creatures maybe used to be both land and water animals?

 

[PsychoSarah]

if we go back to axe work on the 150 aa long protein: he conclude that one in every 10^77 we will get that function. so the chance to get this specific function again is about 10^77. do you agree?

Disagree; many proteins have nearly identical functions/perform the same function with differing efficiency. Thus, the probability of getting a protein with a function is far higher than the probability of getting a specific protein sequence. Furthermore, not all sequences are equally probable; proteins with a sequence similar to a different, existing protein sequence are far more likely to occur. Treating it all as purely random chance is erroneous. Not only is it "what works persists" but also "mutations can act upon that which already works".

but a bacteria has a different mechanism for moving. so we need to explain how such a traits can evolve stepwise.

-_- do you seriously not know that there are single celled eukaryotes with flagella? Do you not see the connection between how flagella move and the motion of actin filaments in muscle? Do you even know what I am referencing?

Do you seriously not know that every cell in your body contains proteins relevant to movement such as actin, and that your muscle cells are just specialized to utilize these proteins for synchronized movement with other muscle cells in the same muscle? Take some human physiology, dude. I can think of not a single specialized cell type that performs an activity that no other cells do. The missing step is "doing it more in some spots".

 

[doubtingmerle]

lets say that this kind of watch will have living traits. like organic components (proteins, DNAׁ) and a self replication system.

...And a freewill. Is it then a person?

Oh wait, you ignore questions about things that are not real.

Can you explain to me why you always ignore questions about things that could not possibly be real, while demanding others answer questions about things that could not possibly be real?

 

[doubtingmerle]

1) the original talkorigin claim was that if we will find many species with a trait that is shared between unrelated species then evolution will be in a real problem. since we indeed find many such cases talkorigin claim is totally false.

Actually the claim is that if the number of such non-conforming finds is statistically significant, that is a problem. This is what it says:

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified. [Source: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1, emphasis added]
​

You were told over and over that you need to find enough cases to be stastisically significant. You ignore it. That is what you do. You ignore what people say and then declare victory. The article includes a graph showing the extent to which the findings are significant. It gives multiple references with more information. You simply ignore all that and declare victory.

2) we have seen that even if we will find a nested hierarchy in designed objects it will not prove they evolved from each other. therefore even if nested hieriarchy exist in nature it will not be evidence for common descent.

Again you are basically sorting vehicles in order based on one variable. That is not a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies sort on multiple independent variables, with multiple trees branching out to other trees. Analysis repeatedly shows that one order is the correct order. Not so with vehicles, where one can sort on many variables with no nested hierarchy showing as the correct one.