the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

i think that this estimation base on fossils and thus base on radiometric dating. when i actually gave real time evidence for speciation event:

Watching new species evolve in real time

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Nice to see you posting articles arguing for evolution.

Speciation can occur fast if there is enough diversity already in the gene pool and a subgroup is isolated in slightly different circumstances. The problem is with building all the diversity of the gene pool of the cat family in 4500 years.

 

[xianghua]

Your suggestion is that we limit to one manufacturer. Ok, if they make 8 models, you can sort their product into 8 groups. Big deal. Now look at the variations of each model based on option packages. Now you have perhaps 100 car taxa. Now start comparing "organs": antilock brakes, power windows, air conditioning, rear wiper, etc. Now try building a nested hierarchy that shows a representative batch of those 100 models and shows how all those features relate. You might be able to do it with a matrix, but not a unique statistically significant hierarchy.

first: do you agree or disagree that in general a fish will be more similar to other fish then to a mammal?
second: do you agree or disagree that in general a truck is more similar to other trucks then to a car?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i think that this estimation base on fossils and thus base on radiometric dating. when i actually gave real time evidence for speciation event:

Watching new species evolve in real time

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

What part of "broad generalization" did you not understand? My point was that you can't assume that, say, housecats, will have the capacity to evolve as fast as another given organism, because too many factors impact the speed at which evolution occurs.

Furthermore, I gave an example of a new species definitively arising in less than 100 years in the form of all female whiptail lizard species, thus recognizing that evolution in vertebrates can be rather fast on the species level.

It seems infinitely strange to me that an ID supporter would claim that evolution is fast enough to observe within a human lifespan in any context, though. Regardless, you need to understand that these cases are outliers that don't inherently apply to other organisms, such as housecats.

 

[xianghua]

No. It entirely depends on how the tree is rooted.

The thing to understand is that rooting the tree is effectively setting the parent clade from which all subsequent "offspring" clades are derived. So ultimately the position of the bicycle it will depend on how the bicycle clade will be derived based on whatever traits are inherent in the rooted, parent clade.

This is why the use of a distinct, unambiguous outlier is used to root a tree, because otherwise the resulting tree makes little sense.



You're welcome to try if you want. I've provided the characteristic list I was using. Feel free to extend that list and see what results you come up with.

The software I used is Mesquite. You can download it here: Mesquite - home



It actually does make sense when you consider how vehicles are categorized and which characteristics define those categories. In general, vehicle categories have to do with function, cargo capacity and weight, which tend to be a limited range of characteristics.

And while characteristics specific to those attributes will generally define that vehicle, things can still vary and some vehicles don't fit well into specific categories. Just consider vehicles like mini-trucks as an example:

Or odd vehicles like the Subaru BRAT. Is it a car? A pick-up truck? Something in between?

Then there are a whole range of characteristics completely independent of vehicle type. You could have a vehicle with 2 doors, forward engine compartment with a 6 cylinder engine, twin leather seats, SatNav system, stereo system with multiple speakers, side view mirrors, front headlamps and rear tail lights, and chrome wheels. These traits could equally apply to a sports car or a heavy duty Mack truck.

This whole discussion started from the idea that it was possible to create independent convergent phylogenetic trees of designed objects based on independent characteristics. But in practice, that just doesn't seem to be the case. Which makes sense considering that designed objects like vehicles aren't subject to hereditary constraints. Designers are free to create whatever they want with whatever characteristics they want. The same isn't true of biological organisms subject to natural evolution.

ok. the same points i made above: do you agree that a tipical fish is more similar to other fish because both are fish?

second: do you agree that a bicycle is more similar to other bicycle in general then to a car? if so then you agree that we have a general hierarchy like fish, mammals, birds etc because a general similarity of those groups. so we can explain it just as we can explain a general similarity between non living things.

 

[doubtingmerle]

first: do you agree or disagree that in general a fish will be more similar to other fish then to a mammal?

In terms of morphology, generally yes, but in terms of evolution, some fish are part of the line that led to mammals, and they are closer to humans than to some other fish in terms of ancestry.

second: do you agree or disagree that in general a truck is more similar to other trucks then to a car?

You can divide vehicles into 2 groups.

[POUNDING CHEST] I can show dozens of living things in a unique consistent nested hierarchy. My 32 taxa in a nested hierarchy beats your two of different kinds.
[/pounding chest]

 

[pitabread]

if so then you agree that we have a general hierarchy like fish, mammals, birds etc because a general similarity of those groups. so we can explain it just as we can explain a general similarity between non living things.

You already made this same claim about trucks and cars. Then when I tested your claim, it turns out not to be true.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly explained to you it's not simply about constructing a hierarchy. It's about being able to construct independent, statistically significant hierarchies of the same objects using independent characteristics.

With living things their similarities or differences are generally constrained by hereditary descent. Thus it makes sense that one can build independent trees from different characters or genetic sequences and still get statistically significant convergent trees. The same doesn't hold true for non-living objects as I already tested in the above linked thread using various vehicles.

If you want to argue otherwise then test it yourself and produce your results. But based on my own testing, your claim is not true.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You observe nothing at any time outside the fishbowl! Of course they behave themselves while here. That should be obvious. What, you though we would get a bunch of rebel atoms coming in refusing to obey the forces and laws and time here?

I think Hecd2 has done a good job of explaining to you how we know the universe is very big, that the light from distant stars has traveled many million of years to get here, and that the basic physics of the stars years ago was the same as today's physics. And I can see that you will always answer by saying that was all outside the fishbowl of spacetime that you recognize as current. And no matter how many points he explains that are totally consistent with the view of mainstream science, you will simply claim that your fictitious different physics in space accounts for the apparent distance to stars, accounts for the frequencies of arriving light, accounts that the light signature of a given star just so happens to have the signature of a hydrogen burning star, accounts that the signature is consistent with a given size and luminosity, accounts that all these facts happen to conform with what we would expect in stars with known physics, etc.

And the question becomes, if the physics out there is so different that it somehow transforms all this data from stars 100 light years away into a consistent picture of them being millions of light years away, how can that odd physics you suggest make all the data consistent with the mainstream view? The more things you demand of your contrived physics, the more the whole concept strains the realms of credibility. William of Ockham figured this out long ago. The more you need to add multiple ad hoc explanations to a view to explain it, the more likely it is that your base view is wrong. Every time you add another thing that this mysterious physics just happens to do, you make the whole thing unlikely. For this reason, views that rely on simple explanations are more likely true.

The simplest explanation is that the universe looks old because it is old. I conclude that your fictitious physics in the time of Noah is nonsense.

 

[dad]

You don't believe in science, remember dad?

As in your religion..no.

 

[dad]

Right back at ya. You claim a different physics in the time of Noah and outside the solar system.

Nope. I do not know (as science doesn't) about laws in the far universe, and I do not see how it matters. The issue with the universe is time. Unless it is the same at all points, no distances or sizes of stars or time involved in light moving is known.

Yes, nature on earth was apparently different..so? Anything to say about it?

 

[dad]

I think Hecd2 has done a good job of explaining to you how we know the universe is very big, that the light from distant stars has traveled many million of years to get here, and that the basic physics of the stars years ago was the same as today's physics.

He did not even address actual time in the far universe. If that is a good job in your mind, fine.

And I can see that you will always answer by saying that was all outside the fishbowl of spacetime that you recognize as current.

No, not current. The way God put time in our world is not related to what time might be like in the far corners of the universe, that we know. The thing is science simply does not know anything about what time is or is like in deep space. We do not need deep space to change. Just nature on earth.

And no matter how many points he explains that are totally consistent with the view of mainstream science, you will simply claim that your fictitious different physics in space accounts for the apparent distance to stars, accounts for the frequencies of arriving light, accounts that the light signature of a given star just so happens to have the signature of a hydrogen burning star, accounts that the signature is consistent with a given size and luminosity, accounts that all these facts happen to conform with what we would expect in stars with known physics, etc.

Nothing about how we see light/spectra from the far universe even addresses what time is like there. The issue is not laws...but time.

And the question becomes, if the physics out there is so different that it somehow transforms all this data from stars 100 light years away into a consistent picture of them being millions of light years away, how can that odd physics you suggest make all the data consistent with the mainstream view?

No. The question is what time is like out there. Not physics. You are in no position to know all that is out there. Science admits seeing only 5%!!!! Let's not get sidetracked (though I could, and win) with physical only laws in far space. The issue is time, and the baloney years you claim for it all.

The more things you demand of your contrived physics, the more the whole concept strains the realms of credibility.

Science does not know. So all that remains to be credible is what the bible says. The stars will all disappear and be seen to do so from earth. The stars were placed in space for earth...to help regulate TIME! That is credible. Ignorance based godless speculation about time in far space is not credible.

You seem to think that only what fits with your religion is simple and credible. No.

The simplest explanation is that the universe looks old because it is old. I conclude that your fictitious physics in the time of Noah is nonsense.

It looks fine, only when fanatically filtered through your fishbowl fantasy realm does it look old...to you. Not to me. I see nothing old at all about it. It is a wonderful new universe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As in your religion..no.

Then you probably shouldn't run to it at every opportunity.

Still waiting for you to show light moving, dad.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nope. I do not know (as science doesn't) about laws in the far universe, and I do not see how it matters.

And do you know about the laws of the universe on highway 80 last Tuesday? Were you there? If you can divide the universe into segments with different places having different physics, why cannot others do that with their own spots in spacetime? Why do you and only you get to declare spots in time and space to have different laws of physics?

The issue with the universe is time. Unless it is the same at all points, no distances or sizes of stars or time involved in light moving is known.

Some distances to stars are known by simple triangulation. Are you saying that space not only has different physics, but different trigonometry?

Yes, nature on earth was apparently different..so? Anything to say about it?

So far you have offered no proof that the earth had different physics. You have offered only an ancient story that defies the laws of nature, so you hypothesized that the laws of nature were different back then. But the other option is that your story is fiction.

Do you also say Harry Potter may be a true story, that he could have just been living when the laws of physics were different then they are today?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It looks fine, only when fanatically filtered through your fishbowl fantasy realm does it look old...to you. Not to me. I see nothing old at all about it. It is a wonderful new universe.

Uh no, astronomy is an amazingly consistent science with all sorts of data about space objects that are often measured to be millions of light years away. The issue is that everything from background radiation to black holes to starlight is consistent with the view that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and light has been traveling for million of years.

Again the question is why all of this arrives looking exactly as one would expect for light that had been traveling from stars with the same physics as we have. If the light instead had come from a universe with completely different physics, why doesn't it look like it came from a completely different physics?

 

[xianghua]

In terms of morphology, generally yes, but in terms of evolution, some fish are part of the line that led to mammals, and they are closer to humans than to some other fish in terms of ancestry.

great. so its make sense even undner the creation model that similar morphology= similar genes. and therfore we dont need evolution to explain it.

You can divide vehicles into 2 groups.

[POUNDING CHEST] I can show dozens of living things in a unique consistent nested hierarchy. My 32 taxa in a nested hierarchy beats your two of different kinds.
[/pounding chest]

we can divide vehicles by more then 2 groups: bicycle, motorcycle, car, truck and so on.

 

[VirOptimus]

great. so its make sense even undner the creation model that similar morphology= similar genes. and therfore we dont need evolution to explain it.



we can divide vehicles by more then 2 groups: bicycle, motorcycle, car, truck and so on.

Define the ”creation model” and what in entails and give example on how to falsify it.

 

[xianghua]

You already made this same claim about trucks and cars. Then when I tested your claim, it turns out not to be true.

so a car and a truck basically share the same level of similarity? you just tets it with 14 traits. when in re ality we should check the entire object. otherwise i can give you many examples of such contradictions in nature too. including human.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly explained to you it's not simply about constructing a hierarchy. It's about being able to construct independent, statistically significant hierarchies of the same objects using independent characteristics.

as i showed before: many of such independent characteristics exist in vehicles too: 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 dont.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we can divide vehicles by more then 2 groups: bicycle, motorcycle, car, truck and so on.

so?

Nobody claimed that it was great that we can divide animals into groups.

What is unusual is that we can consistently place dozens of animals Into a unique consistent nested hierarchy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a car and a truck basically share the same level of similarity? you just tets it with 14 traits. when in re ality we should check the entire object. otherwise i can give you many examples of such contradictions in nature too. including human.




as i showed before: many of such independent characteristics exist in vehicles too: 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 dont.

Dividing things into groups is not the same thing as building a unique nested hierarchy.

Dividing things into groups is not the same thing as building a unique nested hierarchy.

Dividing things into groups is not the same thing as building a unique nested hierarchy.

Dividing things into groups is not the same thing as building a unique nested hierarchy.

Would you like me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit?

 

[SheldonCooper]

Logically speaking,

The universe doesn't care about time nor is it concerned about measuring it. It simply is time and the only creature created that cares about measuring time is humans. Why? I don't know. However, a self replicating watch is in my expert opinion, outlandish, absurd and ridiculous.

Logically speaking,

If a self-replicating watch was a thing that was a natural creation then it would have already been here thus we would never have had a need for a regular watch to begin with. Of all the discoveries we've made and inventions we've created, in 2018 we haven't found a " self-replicating watch " yet? It's because such a thing would indeed need to be created and molded to the understanding of a human's brain. You would have to consider if this technology is indeed a natural creation then you will undoubtedly have to consider the fact that animals are using this " time piece " as well to navigate. They too are a part of nature yet there are no studies or discoveries about animals of any kind, including insects, functioning off the awareness of some sort of self replicating watch.

 

[xianghua]

Define the ”creation model” and what in entails and give example on how to falsify it.

creation model simply mean that nature was designed. so we should find evidence for design that cant be explain by a natural process. you may falsify it by showing how a creature can evolve naturally or you can prove it by positive evidence. means its testable.