My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

Ah, so now you require scientific evidence for something!

Very well, since there is scientific evidence that evolution by means of natural selection can explain the vast variety of life, and no designer is required

we are still checking this claim. and we will see later if evolution can explain it or not. for now, are you agree or disagree that evolution can evolve a self replicating robot\watch?

 

[xianghua]

Every such system that has ever been pointed out by cdesign proponentsists, have turned out to have precursor genes and/or demonstrable pathways of evolution.

so show us how we get the first eyespot from non eyespot please. how many amino acid we need to change for this transition? if what you said is true then you should have no problem to answer this.

 

[Jimmy D]

so show us how we get the first eyespot from non eyespot please. how many amino acid we need to change for this transition? if what you said is true then you should have no problem to answer this.

I don't know if Dogmahunter can provide the answer or not, but if he can't all that is evidence for is that he doesn't know the answer, it has no bearing on your assertion that it's not possible or that some vague, unspecified supernatural intervention you believe in has occurred.

 

[pitabread]

it's simple: any minimal light detector need at least several parts. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.

It's not that simple, since there are ways for such things to evolve (i.e. co-opting of existing components, functional changes, scaffolding, etc). There is nothing explicitly prohibiting evolution of something with multiple parts and thus far you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

 

[TBDude65]

so how he get the first eyespot from non-eyespot? this is the quesion.

Do you even know what an eyespot is?

 

[xianghua]

It's not that simple, since there are ways for such things to evolve (i.e. co-opting of existing components, functional changes, scaffolding, etc). There is nothing explicitly prohibiting evolution of something with multiple parts and thus far you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

again: you cant just mix parts in existing system and make a light detector. so no its impossible to made a light detector stepwise.

 

[pitabread]

again: you cant just mix parts in existing system and make a light detector. so no its impossible to made a light detector stepwise.

So you keep asserting, but you still haven't demonstrated that.

Surely you understand that biological functions can and do change due to genetic variation. This is evolution 101,so if you don't understand how this works, it might explain why you don't understand how something like a light spot or eye could evolve.

You may want to start here: Explaining major evolutionary change

Also: Functional divergence - Wikipedia

 

[Ana the Ist]

and this reason is? now, if you will claim that we cant call it a robot because it have a s elf replicating system or made from organic components, then i already explained why it doesnt matter at all.

I must've missed your explanation...feel free to give me a page and number or link it.

what do you mean by "other things"?

Everything alive that isn't human...oak trees, algae, tigers, crows, etc.

 

[Kylie]

we are still checking this claim. and we will see later if evolution can explain it or not. for now, are you agree or disagree that evolution can evolve a self replicating robot\watch?

Every single test we have done supports the validity of evolution. You have shown NOTHING to cast doubt on this.

And I suspect your self replicating robot\watch question is just an attempt to muddy the waters. Let's stick to biological evolution, shall we?

 

[Kylie]

so show us how we get the first eyespot from non eyespot please. how many amino acid we need to change for this transition? if what you said is true then you should have no problem to answer this.

If part of your skin is in the sun, can you feel that part of the skin warmer than other parts that aren't in the sun?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if we will find 2 creatures that are actually looks very different from each other even though they are close to each other (from phylogenetic perspective) then evolution is false?

Why do you make up things that nobody said, and pretend they said them?

Again, when two animals are closely related, in general, the embryos of the two animals are much closer in appearance than the adults are. I have explained to you why this is.

None of that prevents a bat and a mouse, which are related species, from looking quite different as adults.

Can you respond to what I actually say, rather than making stuff up?

Please.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why not? it can be a kind of. they both render an image by a similar process and parts.

An eye can be a "kind of" video camera? Ok, I will go along with that.

But being a "kind of" video camera is not the same thing as being a video camera. Eyes are not made in factories. Eyes do not have copper wires. Eyes do not have batteries. Etc. There are many ways that an eye differs with a video camera.

It simply is not true that if something is true about a video camera, then that is also true about eyes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

because they both seems too complex to evolve by a natural process. so both are evidence for design.

Just as I said you would do, you made no attempt to validate your claim, and you go back to claiming irreducible complexity.

So you are giving up on your original claim that the fact that a watch needs a designer proves that a human needs a designer?

You are moving the goalposts. You are modifying your statement to say, "the fact that humans seem complex proves that a human needs a designer".

That is a different claim. I see that you make no attempt to justify your first claim. So since you yourself drop that claim, I will assume it is invalid.

to prove what? that a robot need a designer?

I told you what I wanted you to prove. Once again: Prove your claim that a robot could not possibly be designed by a future computer running an advanced genetic algorithm. Prove it, please.

 

[xianghua]

So you keep asserting, but you still haven't demonstrated that.

Surely you understand that biological functions can and do change due to genetic variation. This is evolution 101,so if you don't understand how this works, it might explain why you don't understand how something like a light spot or eye could evolve.

You may want to start here: Explaining major evolutionary change

Also: Functional divergence - Wikipedia

so basically you just believe that it's possible to evolve a complex trait without any evidence. good to know. even your link is about variations and not about evolution of complex systems.

 

[xianghua]

I must've missed your explanation...feel free to give me a page and number or link it.

here is from my first comment:

"the main objection to this argument is that if the object is made from oroganic components then we cant call it a robot. but this is wrong because if for instance we will see a watch that made from a wood and have a self replicating system we can still consider it as a watch. even if it made from a wood. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot."



Everything alive that isn't human...oak trees, algae, tigers, crows, etc.

i actually never said that i believe those creatures evolved. i claiming that any creature cant evolve into another one.

 

[xianghua]

And I suspect your self replicating robot\watch question is just an attempt to muddy the waters. Let's stick to biological evolution, shall we?

actually is my main objection to evolution. so here is my question again: are you agree or disagree that evolution can evolve a self replicating robot\watch?

If part of your skin is in the sun, can you feel that part of the skin warmer than other parts that aren't in the sun?

yes. but it's different from detecting light direction. it's actually about cold and heat detection.

 

[xianghua]

Why do you make up things that nobody said, and pretend they said them?

Again, when two animals are closely related, in general, the embryos of the two animals are much closer in appearance than the adults are. I have explained to you why this is.

None of that prevents a bat and a mouse, which are related species, from looking quite different as adults.

Can you respond to what I actually say, rather than making stuff up?

Please.

you said that: "Thus, the closer two creatures are in the evolutionary tree, the closer their embryos are,"-

so by this logic, if we will find 2 closer species that looks different as embryos this claim is false.

 

[xianghua]

It simply is not true that if something is true about a video camera, then that is also true about eyes

so if we agree that both are a kind of a camera, do you think it's possible to made a camera that base on one part?

So you are giving up on your original claim that the fact that a watch needs a designer proves that a human needs a designer?

where? why do you think that a living creature cant be consider as robot? if we will made a walking robot that made from organic components, you will consider it as a robot or a living creature?

 

[pitabread]

so basically you just believe that it's possible to evolve a complex trait without any evidence. good to know.

You're being presumptuous. I've spent considerable time reading up on the mechanics of evolution including the evolution of complex traits. So it's not simply believing something with no evidence; there is evidence that evolution can and does evolve complex things. If anything there is no evidence for the physical, biological barriers to evolution that you keep suggesting but fail to support.

If you want I can give you more technical literature to peruse but last time I did that you complained about not being able to understand them.

 

[xianghua]

You're being presumptuous. I've spent considerable time reading up on the mechanics of evolution including the evolution of complex traits. So it's not simply believing something with no evidence; there is evidence that evolution can and does evolve complex things. If anything there is no evidence for the physical, biological barriers to evolution that you keep suggesting but fail to support.

If you want I can give you more technical literature to peruse but last time I did that you complained about not being able to understand them.

but we still discuss the eye evolution (and flagellum) and we still dont have any evidence that it could evolve stepwise. so why do you think we can prove that other system can evolve?