the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

Wut? Just when I think I've stopped seeing creationists post new things that make no sense, you guys continue to surprise me.

The days when you knew you were going to get regurgitated flood geology are over. It seems Henry Morris opened it up to anybody with an internet connection to become a self proclaimed origins expert.

 

[dad]

Ah, so you think you know something. And your own quote says that if you think you know something you are wrong.

I conclude you are wrong

I don't think...I know. Science thinks it knows.

1Jo 5:20 - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

That science bases models of the past on a same nature and laws...we know. That they do not know such a nature existed...we know.

Science is about...NOT knowing!

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't think...I know. Science thinks it knows.

1Jo 5:20 - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

That science bases models of the past on a same nature and laws...we know. That they do not know such a nature existed...we know.

Science is about...NOT knowing!

That's odd. For many think they follow jesus and they differ with your view of origins. So if this method is foolproof, why don't all who follow this method agree?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?

Same answer as last time you asked. You need enough to break the statistically significant finding. They have shown you the chart showing the significance of the findings. You ignore it. They have listed multiple studies that detail the statistical findings. You ignore it.

You want to dispute a finding of science? Fine. Read the relevant studies. Develop an experiment or method that shows their conclusion is wrong, and your new view better incorporates all of the data. That is how it is done. But it begins with understanding the existing work. That is why I have repeatedly pointed you to the existing work. You refuse to attempt to understand it. You cannot begin to refute it until you take the time to understand it.

again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars. so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars.

You have been told what is wrong with this. You ignore it. You were told that there are multiple patterns for which vehicles can be sorted many ways, such as by make or year of production or options package. You need to show that your way is better than the other ways of sorting.

Animals all fit into a grouping that is shown to be the correct grouping. You ignore that.

You sort vehicles into three groups. That is not a nested hierarchy. Here is how you form a nested hierarchy. Divide all vehicles into two groups of any size. Then divide each of those two groups into two other groups. Continue to divide any group with more than one member into two subgroups and keep track of the trees that form. When you have divided all members into many groups you have completed your task. Now show that this is clearly the optimal way to divide everything. With living creatures this is easy to do. Biologists readily agree with the order that has been determined. And repeated statistical analyses have confirmed it is correct. For instance here you will see the result for 30 divisions of life.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics
Now try that for 12 cars. For instance, do it for

Ford F-150 pickup truck
Ford minivan
Ford Focus sedan
Chevy pickup
Chevy Suburban SUB
Cadillac
Toyota pickup truck
Toyota corolla
Toyota Camry
Toyota Rav 4
Honda accord
Mack truck
​

Divide these into two groups and continue to divide until you have completed trees that best categorize the vehicles. You will not be able to do it in a way that is readily accepted by all. And you certainly won't be able to do it in a way that has high statistical significance.

Dividing them into three groups is not a nested hierarchy.

​

The more items you have the harder it is. There are 65 million distinct trees you can form with 12 items. There are a trillion trillion trillion trees you can form with 30 items. And yet we can take 30 living things and have good agreement that this is the correct one among many alternatives. Why then can you not do the same with twelve vehicles?

​

 

[xianghua]

"
That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.

Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.

Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.

How many species on Earth? About 8.7 million, new estimate says


Then there are all the animals that went extinct...some say most animals that lived. In any case 10,000 seems a bit low.

So what was the animal that changed species in 2000 years? I must have missed that.

ok. so lets assume even 100,000 different original "kinds". even that number give us about 1 sq feet for every kind. and remember again that most species are small and we only need cubs rather then adult animal. so they will even have a place for a duty free.

 

[xianghua]

Same answer as last time you asked. You need enough to break the statistically significant finding.They have shown you the chart showing the significance of the findings

so i asked you very simple question about it: how many traits evolution cant explain anymore? if you cant say what the number is then any number is possible by evolution and therefore its not a scientific claim.

You have been told what is wrong with this. You ignore it. You were told that there are multiple patterns for which vehicles can be sorted many ways, such as by make or year of production or options package. You need to show that your way is better than the other ways of sorting.

Animals all fit into a grouping that is shown to be the correct grouping. You ignore that.

You sort vehicles into three groups. That is not a nested hierarchy. Here is how you form a nested hierarchy. Divide all vehicles into two groups of any size. Then divide each of those two groups into two other groups. Continue to divide any group with more than one member into two subgroups and keep track of the trees that form. When you have divided all members into many groups you have completed your task. Now show that this is clearly the optimal way to divide everything. With living creatures this is easy to do. Biologists readily agree with the order that has been determined. And repeated statistical analyses have confirmed it is correct. For instance here you will see the result for 30 divisions of life.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics
Now try that for 12 cars. For instance, do it for

Ford F-150 pickup truck
Ford minivan
Ford Focus sedan
Chevy pickup
Chevy Suburban SUB
Cadillac
Toyota pickup truck
Toyota corolla
Toyota Camry
Toyota Rav 4
Honda accord
Mack truck
​

Divide these into two groups and continue to divide until you have completed trees that best categorize the vehicles. You will not be able to do it in a way that is readily accepted by all. And you certainly won't be able to do it in a way that has high statistical significance.

Dividing them into three groups is not a nested hierarchy.

​

The more items you have the harder it is. There are 65 million distinct trees you can form with 12 items. There are a trillion trillion trillion trees you can form with 30 items. And yet we can take 30 living things and have good agreement that this is the correct one among many alternatives. Why then can you not do the same with twelve vehicles?

​

actually its very easy. we only need to check for most parts. if we had that data we will get that tree. its not different from animal tree that go by the same way: checking for most parts.

There are 65 million distinct trees you can form with 12 items

where you get this number from? talkorigin?

 

[pitabread]

There are 65 million distinct trees you can form with 12 items.

Is it 65 million or 650 million? I just did the calc for # of unrooted trees and got ~654 million possibilities as a result.

 

[pitabread]

its not different from animal tree that go by the same way: checking for most parts.

What does "checking for most parts" mean?

Let me ask you: how do you think phylogenetic trees are calculated? If you had to teach someone how to make one, how would you explain it to them?

 

[dad]

That's odd. For many think they follow jesus and they differ with your view of origins. So if this method is foolproof, why don't all who follow this method agree?

Well, the things we know do not have to do with the things science pretends to know.

 

[dad]

ok. so lets assume even 100,000 different original "kinds". even that number give us about 1 sq feet for every kind. and remember again that most species are small and we only need cubs rather then adult animal. so they will even have a place for a duty free.

? 1 square foot for giraffes and elephants and bears? Not very generous of you.

It did not say God called just baby animals. In fact many animals probably cannot mate if only 1 year old. For example

"Most females give birth for the first time between 14 and 15 years old in African elephants, and slightly later for Asian elephants.."
Elephants are long-lived

There are several species of elephants/bears/tigers etc . No way you will get that in a square foot!

 

[doubtingmerle]

they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".

But you have not found species that combined characteristics of multiple different nested groups. Rather you have found traits that do not have a high consistency with the standard groupings. That is different.

If you have read that essay in any detail, you will know that it is not saying that there must be 100% consistency in all traits. If you look at the graph to the left of the paragraph you quoted you will see it shows that multiple studies show the degree of consistency is less than 100%. And if you read the text at the bottom of the graph, you will see that these studies are still significant as long as the values are above the cyan region.

Sit down, please, young man. You are about to get lectured. You knew that chart was there. I have told you about it many times. And you have to know that the text elsewhere repeatedly says it is talking about a high degree of correlation, not a 100% match. How do I know that you read all that? Because I have referenced this study to you before and you have responded many times by saying it was not evidence. I think you know that it would be wrong to declare a person's argument wrong without hearing what their argument says. So the fact that you have repeatedly told me that their argument is wrong, I take that as a claim that you have read it and understood it. And as even a brief review of that study would have made it clear it is not saying what you claim, that implies that either you were not being truthful when you claimed to have read and understood it, or you do understand it and are deliberately being untruthful now when you misrepresent it. Either way, I think it is time that you are called it for what you are doing. There needs to be a basic commitment to honesty if you want to continue.

 

[doubtingmerle]

? 1 square foot for giraffes and elephants and bears? Not very generous of you.

Apparently they passed through a trash compactor on the way in

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is it 65 million or 650 million? I just did the calc for # of unrooted trees and got ~654 million possibilities as a result.

My mistake, 650 million. I slipped a decimal when I read it out of my excel file.

I see now that there is a table at
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 which would have been easier than calculating it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so i asked you very simple question about it: how many traits evolution cant explain anymore? if you cant say what the number is then any number is possible by evolution and therefore its not a scientific claim.

I cannot give you an exact number of inconsistencies allowed in a statistically significant nested hierarchy because it depends on how many taxa you are comparing and the degree of inconsistency. I have repeatedly referred you to a graph that shows the minimum CI value for a given number of taxa. It references a recognized study with more details. Once again it is here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1. How many times do you want me to repeat this?

actually its very easy. we only need to check for most parts. if we had that data we will get that tree. its not different from animal tree that go by the same way: checking for most parts.

A truck with metric bolts is going to differ on every fastener with a truck with English bolts, but will match the fasteners on a metric car. And yet your analysis ignores all those parts.

You keep referencing three groups with a limited number of criteria. Try forming a nested hierarchy with all criteria for the 12 groups I listed.

where you get this number from? talkorigin?

I learned the formula for number of possible nested hierarchies in a book I have been reading lately, The Ancestors Tale be richard dawkins. A chart which matches the values I calculate is at talk.origins.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

progression like this one?:

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

THAT'S NOT EVOLUTION!!!

 

[xianghua]

What does "checking for most parts" mean?

just cheking for the whole genome if its possible. in the truck\car case we need to check for their most parts. in any case you will get a tree.

 

[Larniavc]

how many traits evolution cant explain anymore?

Zero.

 

[xianghua]

? 1 square foot for giraffes and elephants and bears? Not very generous of you.

remember that we are talking about the average. most animals are actually quite small and dont need much place (mean they need much less then 1 square foot). so you will have more then 1 square foot for the big animals.

It did not say God called just baby animals. In fact many animals probably cannot mate if only 1 year old. For example

who said they need to interbreed just after the flood? they can grow up later.

 

[pitabread]

just cheking for the whole genome if its possible.

Are we talking about deriving a tree from DNA or are we talking about deriving a tree based on morphology?

in the truck\car case we need to check for their most parts. in any case you will get a tree.

You're just repeating yourself without explaining anything.

Again, how would you go about deriving a phylogenetic tree based on "parts"? If I wanted to create a phylogenetic tree, how exactly would I go about doing that?

I'm asking you to explain the steps.

 

[xianghua]

But you have not found species that combined characteristics of multiple different nested groups

so how you will call this?:

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

ichthyosaur share at least 20 characteristics with a dolphin. what is the different? talkorigin even give us several examples: "some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers". again: we find many equal examples and they just call it "convergent evolution".

A truck with metric bolts is going to differ on every fastener with a truck with English bolts

im not sure what do you mean by english bolts but lets say that a specific truck will be very different from other trucks . so it will be true for this specific case (if it will be realy that different ). the rest trucks will still be similar to each other.