the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

Uh, that's what I've been doing, but that's not what is occurring. As I've posted, even adding a single new characteristic has the potential to radically re-shape the tree. Which occurred when I added drive type as a characteristic, which was the post you quoted.

As another example here are two more trees. The first based solely on engine and fuel characteristics. The second based on physical body design and features. The two trees are completely different.

When I calculate a P-value for these trees, the result is P of ~1. This means there is no correlation between the two trees.

It's also worth noting that your own attempts to sort vehicles by physical size don't bear out in any of the results I've calculated. While I have yet to include gross physical size as a measurement, the trees I've computed so far show little convergence based on size. Just the varied locations of vehicles like the small cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs confirm that.

What I'm finding is that vehicle characteristics appear to be highly independent of each other. Which makes sense given these are manufactured objects that don't have hereditary constraints.

ok. notice that the bicycle remain in the same position no matter what. its fit well with what i said about general similarity, since most cars shared most parts with other cars rather then with other groups like a bicycle. so we still stay with a single basic hierarchical tree- bicycles, cars, and trucks.

 

[pitabread]

ok. notice that the bicycle remain in the same position no matter what. its fit well with what i said about general similarity, since most cars shared most parts with other cars rather then with other groups like a bicycle.

The bicycle is always in the same position because I'm using it to root the tree. By setting it as the tree root, I'm deliberately forcing it into the same position. If I didn't use it as the root, it would show up in different positions.

so we still stay with a single basic hierarchical tree- bicycles, cars, and trucks.

Except we don't. If you look at the trees I've created trucks get mixed in amongst the cars. And depending on the tree, they show up in different places.

This is the opposite of the type of sorting going you want. The trees don't support your hypothesis. They falsify it.

 

[dad]

I see. So meteorologists are people that are experts on angelology and thus are good at predicting what angels will do next?.

No. They have a limited perspective.

 

[dad]

I could.

No. You certainly could not. For starlight, you only see that AFTER it gets here. You have never observed at any other point. All you can say, regarding time, is what it is like here...how much time light takes to move here.

 

[dad]

So there IS someone we can blame for all the terrible weather. Good to know.

Apparently.

The winds are under the power of angels.

Rev 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

 

[dad]

again: they are talking about species, not families. its a huge different.

That is my point, that the millions of species had to have evolved after they got off the ark. You apparently think that is possible in this nature.

also most of those animals are insects or marine animals. so we only need to check for land vertebrates.

If you are talking only about what you consider were the kinds of animals (families) then maybe we could fit them in. However, we need 33 different species of tigers to evolve in a few thousand years, and millions of other species.

For me, this is no problem, as I assume the nature in the past was different, and allowed such rapid evolution from the kinds.

 

[xianghua]

1. you seem to fail in understanding that multicellular organism cells all contain the same DNA, and that the difference between a muscle cell and a skin cell is gene expression, not gene presence. You are acting as if cells within multicellular organisms evolve independently, when this is not the case. .

sure. but there was a point in the past that there was not a skin cell or a muscle cell and so on. even if all parts for a muscle cell were already present, the chance of combine them to perform such a new function is very low. also: a muscle contain at least several proteins like titin, troponin and nebulin. im not sure they have another function rather then muscle movement. it will be interesting to check it out.

Machines don't all work the same way or share functions, but cells do.

are you saying that evolution was able to do something that even the smartest human on earth cant do? (means it can create a motion system by small steps).

 

[PsychoSarah]

sure. but there was a point in the past that there was not a skin cell or a muscle cell and so on.

Not specialized ones, sure. However, there is not a single cell that cannot serve as a selective barrier to its surroundings to some extent. There is not a single cell with no moving components. Even the protocells that form in abiogenesis experiments start out with various properties that natural selection can act upon.

even if all parts for a muscle cell were already present, the chance of combine them to perform such a new function is very low.

Nah, it actually happens quite frequently. Remember how duplication of an existing gene is a rather common mutation? The original may not be expressed in a certain tissue, but despite close proximity, it is possible that the copy will be expressed in that tissue, resulting in changes in function.

also: a muscle contain at least several proteins like titin, troponin and nebulin. im not sure they have another function rather then muscle movement. it will be interesting to check it out.

-_- I think you fail to realize that myosin and other proteins associated with muscle movement have movement related functions in other cells. Even sea sponges, which are non-motile creatures overall, have some of these proteins, which gives a lot of time for neuromuscular systems to evolve.

You'd find this out with just a quick Google search if you wanted to.

are you saying that evolution was able to do something that even the smartest human on earth cant do? (means it can create a motion system by small steps).

I can't create an earthquake, but the mindless tectonic plates do it plenty. What humans can or can't do is not representative of what natural processes can and can't do. Furthermore, just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

-_- however, humans simply don't bother to build cars step by step with a function every step of the way. That'd be so much more time consuming than just building a car directly. I've already told you before that it would be entirely possible to build a complex machine while retaining some function at each step of the building process. I don't know why you keep asserting that it would be impossible, heck, if I start with a knife and just continuously added parts to build a watch in the hilt, it'd never lose the original knife function and the end result would be a functional knife that can be used to tell time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. They have a limited perspective.

I see. So if only meteorologists understood angels better they would be better at their jobs?

Flapdoodle.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Apparently.

The winds are under the power of angels.

Rev 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

I hate to break the news to you, but findings have shown that the earth does not have four corners.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. You certainly could not. For starlight, you only see that AFTER it gets here. You have never observed at any other point. All you can say, regarding time, is what it is like here...how much time light takes to move here.

I know how fast light travels and how far it has gone, so yes, I do know how long it has traveled.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok. notice that the bicycle remain in the same position no matter what. its fit well with what i said about general similarity, since most cars shared most parts with other cars rather then with other groups like a bicycle. so we still stay with a single basic hierarchical tree- bicycles, cars, and trucks.

Whopdedoo! You built a nested hierarchy with 3 members. Guess what? There is only one way to make an unrooted nested hierarchy with 3 members. So you had 1 chance in 1 of getting it right. And yet there is no end of your self congratulation for doing something that had one chance of one of being right.


Or perhaps you are not even bragging about making a nested hierarchy, but bragging about sorting things into three groups. Sorting things into three groups is not the same thing as building a nested hierarchy.

 

[dad]

I see. So if only meteorologists understood angels better they would be better at their jobs?.

I am not asking them to know more than their paygrade allows.

 

[dad]

I hate to break the news to you, but findings have shown that the earth does not have four corners.

You thought it did?

 

[dad]

I know how fast light travels and how far it has gone, so yes, I do know how long it has traveled.

You think you do, and we know why you think that Welcome to your religion.

 

[VirOptimus]

You think you do, and we know why you think that Welcome to your religion.

No its you who use magic to try to combat reality. But invoking magic in a science debate is an auto-loss so your posts doesnt matter.

 

[UCDavis]

I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.

And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.

Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.

Has a skeleton of a common ancestor between man and apes ever been found?

 

[Skreeper]

Has a skeleton of a common ancestor between man and apes ever been found?

Yes there are many. Also man is by definition part of the ape family.

 

[UCDavis]

Remains have never been found. Look at quote on the right. Image is from smithsonian institute.

Yes there are many. Also man is by definition part of the ape family.

 

[Skreeper]

Remains have never been found. Look at quote on the right. Image is from smithsonian institute.

You didn't ask for the remains for the ancestor between humans and chimps. Finding that particular fossil is not required anyway and is highly unlikely since fossilization is extremely rare.

The genetic evidence alone establishes that we share a common ancestor.