the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

You didn't read it, did you?

so show me their calculation please.

 

[pitabread]

so show me their calculation please.

I pointed you to literature which discusses the plausible evolutionary pathway of the flagellum. I have no idea what "calculation" you think you need to see, but I am convinced that you haven't read any of the material you have been presented.

Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Origins of Flagellar Gene Operons and Secondary Flagellar Systems
Common Evolutionary Origin for the Rotor Domain of Rotary Atpases and Flagellar Protein Export Apparatus

 

[DennisTate]

s

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

Have you seen the Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman writings and illustrations?

Origin of life

 

[doubtingmerle]

Have you seen the Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman writings and illustrations?

Origin of life

Does this, " closed gravitational wave formation (quantum) [that] contain all forces includ[ing] gravitational (force) electric and ,magnetic forces, strong and weak forces and include life formations," explain self-replicating watches?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so show me their calculation please.

-_- as if you have ever presented a valid calculation.

34/R=evolution occurs where R=reality is an equation equally valid to any that you have posted.

 

[Ophiolite]

so show me their calculation please.

You have been provided with the links to the research. Read it fully. Make notes. Reread it. Contemplate it. Amend your notes. Read it again. Sleep on it. Revisit it. Amend your notes. Refer to key citations in the research in portions of the article that confuse you, that are unclear, or you feel are contradicted by other evidence. Process them in the same way until you have developed a sound understanding of the data and the hypothesis based on them. Then, if serious reservations remain, return here and state those reservations in a clear, concise comprehensive manner. Until then I suggest you cease posting.

 

[RealityCheck01]

13 June 2018 MaudDib: A "we really don't have any evidence" lie for common descent/ancestry.
14 June 2018 MaudDib: Cite your sources for the "there is no evidence for macroevolution at the scale at the scale the theory of evolution assumes to extrapolate to".

Your Hi Merle post needs a response.
Are you aware that books have copyright notices ? That we see books being published? That DNA is not a book?

Theogony (plural theologies) is the origin and genealogy of the Greek gods only. There are other gods!

"You stand in front of a crowd, and ask, who came to believe in Zeus or Thor as an adult?" is a bad question. The reasons that people convert to a religion as adults start with the basic fact of the religion exists! So no one can really ask that question today.
Historically there would have been adult converts to Zeus as the Greeks came into contact with other cultures (think about Alexander the Great!). Ditto for adult converts to Thor as the Germanic tribes he originated with moved about. Ditto for most gods. As cultures come inot contact, their religions became mixed.

There are even religions that seem to target adult converts, e.g. Mithraism.

Read what you reply to more carefully - the old testament is not the new testament! The OT is a set of stories mostly about a tribe "boasting" about their God. He creates the world. He selects them as a Chosen People. He commands attacks that involve massacres, rape and slavery. . etc. etc.

 

[xianghua]

I pointed you to literature which discusses the plausible evolutionary pathway of the flagellum. I have no idea what "calculation" you think you need to see, but I am convinced that you haven't read any of the material you have been presented.

Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Origins of Flagellar Gene Operons and Secondary Flagellar Systems
Common Evolutionary Origin for the Rotor Domain of Rotary Atpases and Flagellar Protein Export Apparatus

so show me their calculation. if there are so many papers about the flagellum evolution it should be easy. right? i can predict that if id is true we will not find even a single source of a real calculation for the flagellum evolution. show me that im wrong please.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so show me their calculation. if there are so many papers about the flagellum evolution it should be easy. right? i can predict that if id is true we will not find even a single source of a real calculation for the flagellum evolution. show me that im wrong please.

-_- why would there be a calculation in regards to specific traits? It is impossible to calculate the probability of a given trait appearing in general because it is impossible to know all the combinations of sequences and genes that would result in it and to compare those to the number of sequences that can exist overall.

But regardless as to how many different card decks you shove together that consist of no repeating cards, if you deal out 5 cards, some combination of 5 cards will be dealt. Doesn't matter how many more you add to make a given combination less likely, some combination is going to be dealt.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so show me their calculation. if there are so many papers about the flagellum evolution it should be easy.

What "calculations" are you imagining? I can predict this is a question for "calculations" because you still do not know that the evolution of the flagellum is based on observations.

What makes this worse is that you are replying to a post with a list of papers on the evolution of the flagellum !
Common Evolutionary Origin for the Rotor Domain of Rotary Atpases and Flagellar Protein Export Apparatus is the observation that these two features have common attributes suggesting common origins.

Together with sequence comparison among the globular part proteins, the data strongly suggest that the rotor domains of the rotary ATPases and the flagellar export apparatus share a common evolutionary origin.

 

[pitabread]

so show me their calculation.

Again, I'm not even sure what "calculation" you are talking about.

Your contention has been that the flagellum can't evolve. And yet, there are plausible stepwise paths by which the flagellum can evolve.

i can predict that if id is true we will not find even a single source of a real calculation for the flagellum evolution.

This statement makes absolutely no sense and I think you're just coming up with silly excuses to avoid having to address the material you've been presented. But that's entirely on you.

 

[Speedwell]

so show me their calculation. if there are so many papers about the flagellum evolution it should be easy. right? i can predict that if id is true we will not find even a single source of a real calculation for the flagellum evolution. show me that im wrong please.

You're not getting through to us here. We know, English is not your first language, so you had better explain a little what you mean by "calculation" because the way you are using the word doesn't make any sense in English.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

A watch has a face, and by chance if it forms and your can read it's face and it works... that is extremely unlikely. But the first bacterium, only needed to consume and reproduce in the chemical soup of primordial Earth.

God seems to be a mere force in the universe, because he works by natural laws made for these purposes. Made for creative processes, guided by God, and maybe influenced by angels both good and evil.

If a bacterium forms by chance, chance is God. The universe if full of creative cause. The universe is designed and design canvas. Or some think the universe is self existent and full of patterns, order and beauty as a result of good luck.

The first cell needed a designer, but in the natural order of the universe, parallel, not interjecting man's logic.

I agree with theistic evolution.

An example of this is the idea of humanoids that can learn English in Hawking's universe. It can't happen by chance, but in God's universe, it can. And they can have 46 chromosomes and interbreed with us. Gen 6.

In my view, sexual reproduction and the conscious sentient mind cannot exist by chance. The earlier began in the sea with fish, and land with plants.

 

[doubtingmerle]

.

God seems to be a mere force in the universe, because he works by natural laws made for these purposes...If a bacterium forms by chance, chance is God. The universe if full of creative cause. The universe is designed and design canvas. Or some think the universe is self existent and full of patterns, order and beauty as a result of good luck.

In other words we can choose to call the chance forces of the universe "God".

Alternatively, we can choose to call it chance.

 

[Mountainmike]

But then you are describing an ordinary cell!
Which in pathway terms is far more complex than any chemical factory ever built
Yet that exists without evidence of antecedents. Or a conjectured process. Or a conjectured (but not observed ) antecedent. So it truly is the philosophical self replicating watch that is the subject of this thread.

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.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

In other words we can choose to call the chance forces of the universe "God".

Alternatively, we can choose to call it chance.

Some of them. Free will testing and immaturity nursery/universe. Place of fundamentals, in which we are to experience suffering. Satan is here as well, as an accuser, a tester.

God, angels, spirits of disobedience in the air, demons and dark angels.

God is extremely patient and does not think with logic, or make tools as we know them.

 

[Ophiolite]

But then you are describing an ordinary cell!
Which in pathway terms is far more complex than any chemical factory ever built
Yet that exists without evidence of antecedents. Or a conjectured process. Or a conjectured (but not observed ) antecedent. So it truly is the philosophical self replicating watch that is the subject of this thread.

I was describing an ordinary multi-cellular organism, which I took be was xinghua's intent for his self-replicating watch. In the absence of any statement to the contrary and in the context of evolution versus creation, coupled with the concept of Design, the watch is a living doppelganger of Paley's watch on the heath.

The antecedents are evident in the biochemistry of the cell.
There is a cornucopia of suggestions as to how the various processes may have arisen. If you want a detailed reading list you'll have to wait six months for me to dig them out. Do you want me to the work?

 

[RealityCheck01]

A watch has a face, and by chance if it forms and your can read it's face and it works... that is extremely unlikely. But the first bacterium, only needed to consume and reproduce in the chemical soup of primordial Earth.

We know that watches are designed so the watch argument is just wrong.

The overwhelming evidence is that evolution works through known real world mechanisms. Bacteria evolve and new species are formed. Animals form and new species are formed.

This thread and its invalid argument is about evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Look at the first post over a year ago. It is about the flagellum motor and is very wrong. A designed by a graphic designer graphic of a flagellum motor is not evidence that real flagellum motors are designed. The evidence is that the flagellum motor evolved.

I pointed you to literature which discusses the plausible evolutionary pathway of the flagellum. I have no idea what "calculation" you think you need to see, but I am convinced that you haven't read any of the material you have been presented.

Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Origins of Flagellar Gene Operons and Secondary Flagellar Systems
Common Evolutionary Origin for the Rotor Domain of Rotary Atpases and Flagellar Protein Export Apparatus

 

[xianghua]

I agree with theistic evolution.

ok, but why actually?

 

[xianghua]

Again, I'm not even sure what "calculation" you are talking about.

Your contention has been that the flagellum can't evolve. And yet, there are plausible stepwise paths by which the flagellum can evolve.

so this is also a stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle: a car, a jet fighter, a space shuttle.