best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[Loudmouth]

here is one example: the majority of trucks have a mud cover (after the wheels), when cars usually doesnt have this trait.

And yet we can find examples of cars with mud flaps. Your nested hierarchy doesn't exist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

again: here is such an example:

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

a lots of shared traits in a 2 different groups. evolution have no problem.

They have similar traits, but not similar genes for those traits. Bat wings, bird wings, and butterfly wings are all very different.

 

[bhsmte]

All this argument says is that evolution is possible without abiogenesis.

Of course, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

 

[xianghua]

Those aren't shared traits. Those are analogous traits.

that shared a lot of similarity. in some cases (like in the placodonts group) even paleontologys dont know if some traits are analogous or homologous. so the basic claim of nested hierarchy is wrong- we do find similar traits in different group without a commondescent. in some cases even in the genetic level.

And yet we can find examples of cars with mud flaps. Your nested hierarchy doesn't exist.

the argument is still valid because its a general hierarchy. its mean that in some cases we may find a true example of hierarchy. also remember that cars are the product of many designers and not just one. so its possible to find a true hierarchy under a single designer model.

the main point is that even if we will find such hierarchy in cars, it will not prove any commondnescent. therefore the claim that hierarchy is evidence for a commondnenscent is wrong.

 

[xianghua]

-_- trucks are cars. This isn't an example of a nested hierarchy to begin with, because you aren't comparing a past form of a vehicle and a present form of one, you're just comparing two different cars. Furthermore, cars of completely different brands can have pretty much the same design, and car designs of the past can have little to nothing to do with modern ones, even if made by the same company.

lets say that we do find such a case. its still will be evidence for design and not for a natural process. because as far as we know- cars cant evolve naturally.

Just interbreed? Not even produce fertile offspring? That makes for a lot of kinds, and also doesn't entirely eliminate chimpanzees and humans from being in the same kind.

yep. just interbreed. chimp and human cant interbreed, so they are not the same kind (by creationism meaning).

 

[PsychoSarah]

lets say that we do find such a case. its still will be evidence for design and not for a natural process. because as far as we know- cars cant evolve naturally.

-_- we know cars are designed mostly because we are the designers. However, if everything in the world were designed, it would actually be impossible to distinguish anything that we don't directly observe being designed as being designed, thanks to a lack of contrast.

Also, support your hypothetical case with an actual one, or your hypothetical is moot.

yep. just interbreed. chimp and human cant interbreed, so they are not the same kind (by creationism meaning).

Actually, it's not necessarily that humans and chimps CAN'T interbreed... more like they DON'T interbreed. Not because humans are necessarily too picky *cough* inappropriate behavior with animals *cough* but rather because chimps are physically far stronger than us, and they aren't interested. There was an experiment decades ago trying to crossbreed humans with other apes, but chimps weren't in that trial, so who knows, it might be biologically possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

that shared a lot of similarity. in some cases (like in the placodonts group) even paleontologys dont know if some traits are analogous or homologous. so the basic claim of nested hierarchy is wrong- we do find similar traits in different group without a commondescent. in some cases even in the genetic level.

We do find that homologous traits fall into a nested hierarchy.

the argument is still valid because its a general hierarchy.

There is no such thing as a "general" hierarchy. It is something you made up.

There are numerous and clear violations of a nested hierarchy among automobiles. They don't form a nested hierarchy. If you think they do, then you need to construct that hierarchy and show that it is statistically significant.

also remember that cars are the product of many designers and not just one.

Paintings designed by one designer do not fit into a nested hierarchy. Buildings designed by one architect do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Even genetically modified organisms designed by a single scientist regularly violate a nested hierarchy.

the main point is that even if we will find such hierarchy in cars, it will not prove any commondnescent.

We don't find a nested hierarchy in cars or anything designed. We directly observe that evolution does produce a nested hierarchy. That is why a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not design.

 

[xianghua]

-_- we know cars are designed mostly because we are the designers.

but we can also conclude design even if we will never see the designer (lets say a car in a far planet).

-_-
Actually, it's not necessarily that humans and chimps CAN'T interbreed... more like they DON'T interbreed. Not because humans are necessarily too picky *cough* inappropriate behavior with animals *cough* but rather because chimps are physically far stronger than us, and they aren't interested. There was an experiment decades ago trying to crossbreed humans with other apes, but chimps weren't in that trial, so who knows, it might be biologically possible.

ok. but for now we dont have the evidence that its possible.

 

[xianghua]

There are numerous and clear violations of a nested hierarchy among automobiles. They don't form a nested hierarchy. If you think they do, then you need to construct that hierarchy and show that it is statistically significant.

lets say that we indeed find such a case. you will conclude a designer or a natural process for such cars?

We directly observe that evolution does produce a nested hierarchy. That is why a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not design.

i gave to you some examples of shared traits without a commondescent= no nested hierarchy in nature too. we even found the same genes in far species but not between the colser ones. again: no nested hierarchy. if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then the opposite should be evidence against it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but we can also conclude design even if we will never see the designer (lets say a car in a far planet).

Only if they were similar to the cars we make, or were actively functioning. Otherwise, if there was just a bunch of them just on the ground, I might conclude that they were some natural formation.

ok. but for now we dont have the evidence that its possible.

As much as you can't conclude that it is impossible, I can't conclude it is possible. Furthermore, the ethical dilemmas surrounding experiments that would test that would prevent people from doing them in most countries. However, there is evidence that humans crossbred with Neanderthals; we have their DNA, and can tell that they are not human, however, some populations of modern humans have Neanderthal DNA in their genomes nevertheless. Emphasis on some modern human populations, not all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but we can also conclude design even if we will never see the designer (lets say a car in a far planet).

The fact that you identify it as a "car", implies that it is a manufactured object.

ok. but for now we dont have the evidence that its possible.

Nore are we in need of it, to determine that chimps and homo sapiens share ancestors that lived some 7-8 million years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

lets say that we indeed find such a case. you will conclude a designer or a natural process for such cars?

It takes more then merely a nested hierarchy to be the indentifiable result of an evolutionary process. A nested hierarchy is merely the inevitable result of the biological evolutionary process.

Things that are at minimum required for that process to take place are:
- self-reproduction
- a mechanism to introduce changes to the genotype
- a mechanism of inheritance of traits, to pass genotypes to off spring
- a "fitness test", like natural selection

Cars don't self-reproduce with variation, are not in competition with peers for limited resources to survive, aren't subject to environmental selection pressures, don't pass genotypes on to off spring,...

Now, if you would find "cars" that do all those things without any outside aid and which fall into a nested hierarchy... then we can talk about it.


Good luck with that.

i gave to you some examples of shared traits without a commondescent= no nested hierarchy in nature too. we even found the same genes in far species but not between the colser ones. again: no nested hierarchy. if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then the opposite should be evidence against it.

The problem is that you don't understand what you are talking about. You have shown time and again, that you have very little knowledge on all of this.

Like that paper you linked to which supposedly talked about limb-making genes in sharks, while the paper really was talking about ancestral genes (of both sharks and mammals) wich evolved into the limb-making genes in mammals.

When you make such goofy mistakes and expose such blatant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation?), it's pretty impossible to take anything you have to say on this topic seriously.

 

[xianghua]

Only if they were similar to the cars we make, or were actively functioning. Otherwise, if there was just a bunch of them just on the ground, I might conclude that they were some natural formation.

so if you will find a car on the ground in a f ar planet you may not conclude design? ok. but what is the best conclusion: that a car need a designer or the opposite?

However, there is evidence that humans crossbred with Neanderthals; we have their DNA, and can tell that they are not human.

why not? neanderthals are fully humans. of course that they are not identical to modern day human but they all the unique features of humans. they even classified under the homo genus.

 

[xianghua]

Now, if you would find "cars" that do all those things without any outside aid and which fall into a nested hierarchy... then we can talk about it.

so a car with all those features dont need a design?

The problem is that you don't understand what you are talking about. You have shown time and again, that you have very little knowledge on all of this.

so if i will show you that some far species shared genes that we cant find them between closer species it will prove you that there is nonested hierarchy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so if you will find a car on the ground in a f ar planet you may not conclude design?

I would. It's a car. We know what cars are.

but what is the best conclusion: that a car need a designer or the opposite?

We know cars are designed. You can literally visit a car factory.

why not? neanderthals are fully humans.

If they were, they wouldn't be called "homo neanderthalis", but just "homo sapiens".

of course that they are not identical to modern day human but they all the unique features of humans. they even classified under the homo genus.

Humans = homo sapiens.
Homo neanderthalis =/= homo sapiens.

Both homo, but only one of them is sapiens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so a car with all those features dont need a design?

Nope. And note the quotes I used around "car". Because whatever those things would be, "car" would be an inappropriate term.

Because you see, cars aren't natural objects. They are rather manufactured transportation / travel machines.

so if i will show you that some far species shared genes that we cant find them between closer species it will prove you that there is nonested hierarchy?

Considering your elementary mistakes in this thread in context of this topic and your demonstrated lack of knowledge on even the basics of the basics of biology/genetics... I sincerely doubt that you have access to information that would turn biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc etc etc ... on its head.

Be serious here... considering how little you clearly know about this topic, what are the chances that you are in possession of knowledge that just about all experts on these topics aren't aware of, somehow?

Just to illustrate, I won't be holding my breath.
But I have an open mind... Give it your best shot.

As a helpfull tip though... make sure you actually read your sources this time... because the last time you pointed us towards supposed limb-making genes in sharks, your source said the exact opposite of what you thought it said...........

 

[xianghua]

I sincerely doubt that you have access to information that would turn biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc etc etc ... on its head.

so if i will give you an example of 2 species that shared genes that we cant find in 2 species that suppose to be between them (in the tree) it will falsified evolution according to your criteria?

why you cant claim for convergent loss in such a case (genes get lost in those 2 species)?

because the last time you pointed us towards supposed limb-making genes in sharks, your source said the exact opposite of what you thought it said

those are the same genes for both limb and gills development. so i claimed that according to the evolution criteria i can say that shark evolved from a land creature. again- this is not my logic but evolution one (whale have the same genes for legs development- therefore they evolved from a creature with legs).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so if i will give you an example of 2 species that shared genes that we cant find in 2 species that suppose to be between them (in the tree) it will falsified evolution according to your criteria?

No, that's not necessarily a violation of the nested hierarchy.
Let me illustrate....

Let's take hypothetical gene X which evolves in ancestral species A.
Millions of years pass.
During that time, A speciates in A1, A2 and A3
A2 undergoes a mutation and X gets removed from its genepool.
A2 speciates further to A2.1 and A2.2

Now, we have a situation where A1, A2.1, A2.2 and A3 are all sub-species of ancestral species A. Yet, only A1 and A3 still have that gene X.

This is not a violation of the nested hierarchy.

A violation would be finding gene X in species that are NOT descendends of A.

Hence: mammals with feathers, reptiles with inner earbones, sharks with limb-making genes, ...

those are the same genes for both limb and gills development

No. The article was about the genes that are ancestral to limb-making genes. They are not limb-making genes.

These are genes that on the branch of tetrapodia evolved to become limb-making genes. Sharks aren't on that branch. So they don't have the limb-making genes.
What sharks have are other descendends of those ancestral genes.

so i claimed that according to the evolution criteria i can say that shark evolved from a land creature.

No, you can not. Do you not understand what the word "ancestral" means?
Even the article you linked to explicitly stated that it was refering to the genes from which limb-making genes evolved.

The descendends of those genes became the limb-making genes of tetrapodia.
Sharks don't have those descendend limb-making genes.

again- this is not my logic but evolution one (whale have the same genes for legs development- therefore they evolved from a creature with legs).

Whales have the genes that make limbs.
Sharks do not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A violation would be finding gene X in species that are NOT descendends of A.

We do know that horizontal gene transfer can occur - so it is possible between distant lineages; but it's rare in eukaryotes, and rather than invalidating evolution, it's an adjunct to it. Such out of place single genes are not a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

lets say that we indeed find such a case. you will conclude a designer or a natural process for such cars?

With cars, you also lack self replication and hundreds of millions of years of fossils. For those reasons, I would not conclude that cars share a common ancestor.

i gave to you some examples of shared traits without a commondescent= no nested hierarchy in nature too.

No, you didn't. Analogous traits are not shared traits.

we even found the same genes in far species but not between the colser ones.

That is also false. Those genes were shared by all groups.