the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

tell this to prof dawkins who use this analogy too. so i guess that according to you dawkins doesnt understand biology either

I have confidence that Dawkins understands biology well enough to know the limitations of making analogies with non-living things. With you, not so much...

 

[WisdomSpy]

A post full of inane ignorance that needs to be recorded.
19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "uphill genetic process" ignorant statement when evolution has no direction.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A bit of ignorance about the definition of species.
It is not the loss of ability to breed. For example, zebra and horses can breed: Zebroid


Generally a species is a population that does not breed with surrounding populations or produces infertile descendants when they do. The population is "reproductively isolated".
Study of Darwin’s finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations is a new species of finches that have formed as a population of distinctive finches on an island full of other finches.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms" statement .
Natural selection does not eliminate alleles or "gene forms" from populations. As an example you have been naturally selected to depend on a diet containing vitamin C but you still have the broken genes for producing vitamin C. Neutral gene mutations such as a deactivated gene are not selected for or against.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Genetic drift doesn’t build genes" statement
No one expects genetic drift to build genes from scratch, it is a drift within existing gene mutations.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Parrots a Behe lie that the AIDS virus, malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli, etc. invalidate evolution.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Real ignorance that that dog breeding is evolution.
When we breed dogs for specific purposes there are problems caused by that breeding. When dogs live in environments such as kennels, they will catch more diseases.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially" question.
Ultimately all animals have genes that came from the last universal common ancestor.
Initially: Evolution of the wolf

I realize that it is easy to miss the points that I was trying to make. I think that you might understand better if you simply dug a bit deeper and perhaps thought “outside the box” of stereotypical evolutionary ideas and arguments.

I realize that one of the suppositions of Evolution Theory is that “evolution has no direction”. But that is only a convenient supposition that often gets used in circular fashion, like so many other arguments. I maintain my view that if you carefully observe the actual genomic data, you will see that evolution indeed has a direction… and it is virtually always downwards. Please do not mistake what I mean by “downwards”. Many examples could be given but since you mentioned the vitamin C gene, I submit that this demonstrates what I am referring to—a previously functional gene being mutated and turned into a pseudogene is a downward genetic event. Real evolution is full of these events. Now, show me where the opposite phenomenon occurred—where a pseudogene was turned into a functional gene. If that were to occur, it would represent what I have been referring to as “genetically uphill evolution”.


If you or anyone else viewing this thread is interested in doing some actual research for yourself which would prove conclusively why evolutionary ORIGINS (of life and of functional genes) is a hoax, please respond and I will begin a new thread devoted to this project. Fortunately, online resources make this research accessible to almost anyone with a reasonable knowledge of “the genetic code”, a computer with MS Word software, a desire and some time.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Interesting that you mentioned Jericho since it is one of my favorite examples of history and archaeology proving the Bible true.

20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Jericho is archeological evidence against the Biblical account of Josiah.

Book of Joshua: Historical and archaeological evidence

The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events.[20][21]:4 The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE;[21] this was a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time.[22]:71-72

The story was written down in the reign of Josiah reigned 640–609 BCE. There is evidence that the city and its walls were destroyed by earthquakes or during an Egyptian campaign 900 years later before Josiah was born, c.1500 BCE. That is a gap of 900 years between these archeological events and someone writing a story about Jericho.

All that Jericho proves is that the writers of the Bible knew of the existence of Jericho which had been in their local area since about 9500 BC !

 

[WisdomSpy]

All that and still not even the hint of a theory. You appear to have nothing to say but "evolution can't work so it must have been designed," grotesquely misrepresenting evolution as you go. For instance, you denounce evolution as a "random undirected purposeless natural process." How do you know it is purposeless?

Not a hint of a theory? Sorry you missed it. Let me be frank: if Venter can do it, so can an individual with greater intelligence and experience than he. As to which individual(s) this was, I believe that we must appeal to history and archeology, as I said before. And perhaps even more importantly, we can appeal to the history of someone who was crucified, demonstrably dead beyond all hope, guarded by Roman soldiers who were under the threat of death, should they fail their mission… and yet a mere 3 days later, the tomb was demonstrably empty and the resurrected man was witnessed to walk and talk and then to “ascend into the heavens”. Now, read John 1:1 and you might realize more fully what my “theory” is.


As far as evolution not having purpose, I don't suppose it would do you or me any good for me to quote from Dawkins or other such persons. I'm sure that some people might posit that evolution has the purpose of allowing the survival of the fittest. But such a posit is nothing more than an anthropomorphic post-hoc attempt to put lipstick on a pig, so to speak. No offense intended.

 

[WisdomSpy]

20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Jericho is archeological evidence against the Biblical account of Josiah.

Josiah reigned 640–609 BCE. There is no evidence of city walls in Jericho ruined during his reign. There is evidence that the city and its walls were destroyed by earthquakes or during an Egyptian campaign 900 years later, c.1500 BCE.

All that Jericho proves is that the writers of the Bible knew of the existence of Jericho which had been in their local area since about 9500 BC !

You appear to be saying that 1500 BC is "later" than 640-609 BC. You have things backwards. How can I help you see this? Also, I would suggest you read the biblical account of the "children of Israel" coming out of Egypt, floundering in unbelief in the wilderness 40 years, and then, finally (at a time when they had no king), encountering Jericho. The kings came much later.

You might want to visit this site, with amazing pictures of the evidence mentioned in the video:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article

 

[RealityCheck01]

I realize that it is easy to miss the points that I was trying to make.

The ignorance that made your points irrelevant was quite clear. Adding to them just makes things clearer.

20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Ignorant nonsense about "evolution has no direction":
The simple reason that evolution has no direction is because there is no planning in evolution.
Random mutations + selection for fitness does give some "direction". If we plot a fitness landscape then it has local "hills". Evolution allows populations to climb the hills. They get basically stuck at hill tops. But the fitness landscape changes over time as environments change. A population may find itself back on "flat ground" and starts climbing through random mutations + selection for fitness.

20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "virtually always downhill" fantasy about turning off genes, e.g. for vitamin C.
Evolution is mutations + selection for fitness for an environment. If there is plenty of vitamin C in the environment then resources can be saved by not producing vitamin C in the body. If evolution had a direction then that would be "upward" progress.

20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "evolutionary ORIGINS (of life and of functional genes) is a hoax" bit of paranoia.
You are accusing biologists starting with Charles Darwin of creating a hoax. As written that means faking the enormous evidence supporting evolution; lying about confirmed predictions of evolution, etc.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "uphill genetic process" ignorant statement when evolution has no direction.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A bit of ignorance about the definition of species.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms" statement.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Genetic drift doesn’t build genes" statement

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Parrots a Behe lie that the AIDS virus, malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli, etc. invalidate evolution.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Real ignorance that that dog breeding is evolution.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially" question.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You appear to be saying that 1500 BC is "later" than 640-609 BC.

You are right so I amended
20 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Jericho is archeological evidence against the Biblical account of Josiah.

21 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Links to a web site lying they have found "the lost city of Jericho".
The Bible names the city as Jericho. The city of Jericho has been found. British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated a destruction of the city to be incompatible with the Biblical dates. The destruction was as expected by an attack from the Egyptian campaign of the same date (toppled walls, fires, abandoned property suggesting an abandoned city).

The lie is that Kathleen Kenyon "misdated her finds" when they do not produce any dates to show that. Instead they write a fantasy that only Israelites are capable of toppling walls, burning a city or forcing people to abandon a city. The many city states in the region could have sacked Jericho with the same results. The Egyptians or their allies probably did.

Made worse by:

Kenyon's work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries.[6]

 

[Speedwell]

Not a hint of a theory? Sorry you missed it. Let me be frank: if Venter can do it, so can an individual with greater intelligence and experience than he. As to which individual(s) this was, I believe that we must appeal to history and archeology, as I said before. And perhaps even more importantly, we can appeal to the history of someone who was crucified, demonstrably dead beyond all hope, guarded by Roman soldiers who were under the threat of death, should they fail their mission… and yet a mere 3 days later, the tomb was demonstrably empty and the resurrected man was witnessed to walk and talk and then to “ascend into the heavens”. Now, read John 1:1 and you might realize more fully what my “theory” is.

That's not a theory. It just says who, not how. The theory of evolution says how and leaves the who up to personal belief. You say who but all you say about how is that the theory of evolution is wrong, but offer no how of your own.

As far as evolution not having purpose, I don't suppose it would do you or me any good for me to quote from Dawkins or other such persons. I'm sure that some people might posit that evolution has the purpose of allowing the survival of the fittest. But such a posit is nothing more than an anthropomorphic post-hoc attempt to put lipstick on a pig, so to speak. No offense intended.

What would I care about what Dawkins has to say about it? He's an atheist and has no basis for an opinion about the purpose of our existence.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let me be frank: if Venter can do it, so can an individual with greater intelligence and experience than he.

So it is future humans with time machines that are doing the design ?
Or more seriously, advanced aliens that lie to us by only producing results that evolution would produce?
Or since you mention Bible verses, you have a God that lies to us by only producing results that evolution would produce? There are excuses for the lies but they are still lies (test of faith, an overall lie of concealing His existence, maybe others). I emphasize the you because there are Christians who accept the world as it is along with God by interpreting the Bible as a flawed document written by human beings inspired by but not necessarily informed by God.

 

[xianghua]

17 July 2018 xianghua: A lie that natural selection is a process where steps are chosen
Natural selection is environments (perhaps changing through natural processes) and populations being selected to fit the environments by natural processes.
Car modification are designed by human beings for the purposes of human beings. That is one of the things that makes an example of the human design of cars so inane.

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.

how it make any difference? if a designer cant make an ic system in small steps how a natural process can?

 

[xianghua]

I have confidence that Dawkins understands biology well enough to know the limitations of making analogies with non-living things. With you, not so much...

so what about this?:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198044

 

[Speedwell]

how it make any difference? if a designer cant make an ic system in small steps how a natural process can?

Assuming there is an "IC system" as you define it.

 

[pitabread]

so what about this?:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198044

What about it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so the statue of liberty by itself isnt a good evidence of design?

-_- the shape of it alone? No. The fact that it has welding marks and an established history as a man made object is how we know it is artificial. The primary evidence that it is created is the marks of welding, blueprints, etc. In case you didn't know, we can even tell if something is man made if it is made to look natural because of stuff like that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so what about this?:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198044

Ah, so we can gain insights into natural processes by comparing it with human innovation. That sounds likely.

That in no way supports the claim that if cars cannot do something (e.g. evolve, have babies) that this proves animals cannot do these either.

 

[WisdomSpy]

I have confidence that Dawkins understands biology well enough to know the limitations of making analogies with non-living things. With you, not so much...

I find it curious when disciples of Darwin forget that he had misgivings regarding the newly-suggested term "natural selection", since it was ascribing to "nature" the intelligence which human-directed breeding of animals is based upon. He apparently recognized that the term represents an analogy. The other thing that Darwin's disciples forget is that he revealed nothing factual about origins in his beloved book which touts that term. Also, Darwin knew nothing about genes and epigenetics. He knew nothing of the extreme complexity of cells and genetic processes. I suspect that if he had lived long enough to learn these things, he would have recanted his theory regarding origins. This does not mean that things do not change over time. What it means is that the processes that contribute to genetic change over time have not been demonstrated to cause origins--origins of life, origins of genes, origins of eukaryotes, origins of major "kinds" of plants, animals and fungi, etc.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I find it curious when disciples of Darwin forget that he had misgivings regarding the newly-suggested term "natural selection", since it was ascribing to "nature" the intelligence which human-directed breeding of animals is based upon. He apparently recognized that the term represents an analogy.

Citation please?

The other thing that Darwin's disciples forget is that he revealed nothing factual about origins in his beloved book which touts that term.

"Origin of Species by Natural Selection"? Sure it did! It's right there, in the Name!

Also, Darwin knew nothing about genes and epigenetics. He knew nothing of the extreme complexity of cells and genetic processes. I suspect that if he had lived long enough to learn these things, he would have recanted his theory regarding origins.

Then you suspect hilariously off the mark, because these things have only served to cement the Theory of Evolution as probably the most well supported Theory in all of Science.

This does not mean that things do not change over time. What it means is that the processes that contribute to genetic change over time have not been demonstrated to cause origins--origins of life, origins of genes, origins of eukaryotes, origins of major "kinds" of plants, animals and fungi, etc.

"Origin of Species", that's what his original proposition was - he made no bones of the fact that it didn't answer the Origin of Life questions, his theory only pertained to the change in organisms and divergence of species once life was already underway.

 

[Gene2memE]

I find it curious when disciples of Darwin forget that he had misgivings regarding the newly-suggested term "natural selection",

I'd be interested in knowing where I could find reference to Darwin's "misgivings" concerning the term - particularly since he coined the term in relation to biology, and the fourth chapter of OtOoS is entitled 'Natural Selection'.

From my understanding, Darwin only had "misgivings" because of misinterpretation of his hypothesis by others. To quote from his 1860 letter to Charles Lylle:

"Talking of “Natural Selection”, if I had to commence de novo, I would have used 〈natural preservation〉;12 for I find men like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me; though he has read the Book twice.13 Dr Gray of B. Museum, remarked to me that “Selection was obviously impossible with plants”! “No one could tell him how it could be possible”.—14 And he may now add that the Author did not attempt it to him!—"

since it was ascribing to "nature" the intelligence which human-directed breeding of animals is based upon.

Again, I'd be interested in where Darwin states this. It doesn't appear in OtOoS, in any edition, as far as I'm aware.

As far as I can see, he doesn't appear to do this at all. In fact, the fourth chapter of OtOoS directly contrasts the two, at length, and doesn't seem to be drawing anything remotely like the conclusions you are.

He apparently recognized that the term represents an analogy.

Again, I'd need a citation on this, because that's not remotely like anything in his writing that I'm aware of.

The other thing that Darwin's disciples forget is that he revealed nothing factual about origins in his beloved book which touts that term.

Very deliberately. For very well known reasons. As anyone with anything more than a passing knowledge of the subject knows. For much the same reasons as he avoided talking about humans and natural selection in OtOoS.

Also, Darwin knew nothing about genes and epigenetics. He knew nothing of the extreme complexity of cells and genetic processes. I suspect that if he had lived long enough to learn these things, he would have recanted his theory regarding origins.

I though you just said "he revealed nothing factual about origins in his beloved book which touts that term". So, did he, or did he not have a "theory regarding origins"?

Also, the "Darwin would have recanted if only he'd known XXXX" is about the greatest line of malarky I've read today, and I've been spending time reading pro-Trump tweets (for work, not pleasure, I'm not that twisted) so its an exceptionally high bar to get over.

 

[WisdomSpy]

So it is future humans with time machines that are doing the design ?
Or more seriously, advanced aliens that lie to us by only producing results that evolution would produce?
Or since you mention Bible verses, you have a God that lies to us by only producing results that evolution would produce? There are excuses for the lies but they are still lies (test of faith, an overall lie of concealing His existence, maybe others). I emphasize the you because there are Christians who accept the world as it is along with God by interpreting the Bible as a flawed document written by human beings inspired by but not necessarily informed by God.

Have you read the book of Job? Several relevant points can be made from it, and ironically, at least one of them correlates with a point that you are trying to make. I agree that Christians differ significantly in how they view "inspiration" of, and applicability of the Bible. Some fundamentalists seem to want to take virtually everything literally (meaning literalistic in nature). Hence, when Job says "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away" (after he experienced the loss of family and wealth) these Christians simply accept that and they have created an image of God's character which "fits" with this. Unfortunately, they fail to read the book carefully enough to realize that it was not God or "the Lord" who took those things away from Job.

Have you read John 10:10 and John 14:9? If you think of these verses whenever you read anything else in the Bible, then you might avoid some confusion about who God is and what his overall agenda is.

 

[WisdomSpy]

"Origin of Species by Natural Selection"? Sure it did! It's right there, in the Name!

So, clearly, you are conflating ideas. I used the word FACTUAL. You cannot say that because Darwin merely proposed a hypothesis that “natural selection” could explain origins, that such a thought represents a FACT. It does not. The problem with all of you who keep criticizing my posts is that you apparently don’t understand the most basic fact: that “evolution” cannot be equated to “evolutionary origins”. Please, quit conflating the two subjects. If Darwin had known what we know today, he would have known that what he called the process of natural selection DECREASES genetic diversity over time, meaning that in the shuffling of genes which produces offspring (in organisms that reproduce sexually) certain gene forms (i.e. alleles) commonly get removed from populations (at least certain populations under environmental stress, let's say), especially during the phenomenon called bottlenecking. Ironically, this phenomenon has been touted as very important to the production of new population phenotypes. And that is actually true, but the reason does not support naturalistic ORIGINS of genes.

Dogs demonstrate many different phenotypes than their ancestor, the Grey Wolf or something much like it. Yet, this does not mean that dogs somehow accumulated MORE GENES than their ancestor. It is a well-known fact that dogs have more diseases than the wolf and they live shorter lives than wolves live. Why? They have lost genetic diversity. So, the fact that you seem incapable of seeing or accepting is that as “evolution” happens (i.e. Wolf-to-dog), phenotypes can expand while the genotypes are actually contracting (for lack of a better way of explaining). This represents supreme irony that is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory, yet very consistent with Creation/I.D. theory.