the self replicating watch argument

[tas8831]

Design can be ruled in when we see something had to be designed.

"Had to be designed" is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

Tell us about the "design" of the female hyena's pseudopenis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have no more proof of that, than claiming they were always the same.

Or you insisting that they were different at any time.
Last thursday, last friday, last millenia,...

Since there is zero evidence that they were ever different, it seems reasonable to assume they weren't.

We do have ancient history records, and there was nothing about life in old England, or Rome that supports your claim.

Those are fake records, put there by the Dark Side to deceive you.

Ow, and we also have fossils of 100s of millions years old.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because they are ridiculous religious nonsense that cannot be defended or supported.

They are the output of the process of counting DNA matches.

Not the result of "revelations" and "dreams" and "visions" or conversations with burning bushes.

 

[pitabread]

It is not so much that I agree with him as much as that I disagree with you.

That might mean more if I was confident you knew what you were disagreeing with.

 

[pitabread]

do you agree that most parts of a truck is also shared between other truck but not a bicylce? if so then you get your statistical significance since the basic tree (truck is more silimlar to other truck) still exist.

That's not how statistical significance works. Again, checking for statistical significance is a mathematical calculation. You don't just arbitrarily declare something statistically significant.

lets assume just for the sake of the argument that we indeed found such hierarchy among vehicles. in this case you will not conclude design when you see a truck?

This doesn't even make sense as a thought experiment, since ultimately phylogenetic trees are about hereditary relationships between biological organisms. It doesn't even make sense to try to construct them for non-living things in the first place.

 

[pitabread]

so now you actually admit that a truck isnt more similar to another truck then a car?.

I'm not sure what you mean by "now you actually admit", since I haven't changed anything I've been saying.

Again, go back to post #1552 in this thread where I posted the results of generating phylogenetic trees based on vehicles. And post #1610 for that matter. Nothing had changed in the last 20 or so pages of discussion, so go back and refer to those posts for what I have been saying this whole time.

tell me: its also true for a car and a bicylce?

I've already given you answers for these questions. Re-read the past 20 pages or so and you'll find your answers. I'm not rehashing the same line of questioning over and over. It's pointless.

The bottom line is this: you originally made a claim about constructing phylogenetic trees of vehicles (specifically cars and trucks) and suggested that there was no difference compared to constructing phylogenetic trees of biological organisms. I tested that claim and found it wasn't true, in that I didn't get statistically convergent trees when constructing trees based on subsets of different vehicle characteristics. Which is to be expected given the lack of hereditary dependence between vehicles and fact that most characteristics of cars and trucks are independent of their classification.

If you want to dispute this, then you'll need to present your own analysis. And that means a real analysis, not simply drawing made-up trees in Paint backed by empty rhetoric.

If you're just going to repeat the same questions over and over, then we've reached a dead end.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is not so much that I agree with him as much as that I disagree with you.

I know the feeling.

Years ago when I was a creationist, I was embarrassed at the stuff other creationists were posting.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It does not matter if some fossils evidence evolving. What matters is in what nature the evolving happened, and whether creation started it all off.

If fossils are evidence for evolution--and indeed they are--then that does matter. Evidence matters.

Can we agree that evolution happened? Regardless of what nature you think existed, do you at least agree that evolution happened?

You think creation started it all off. Lots of people believe evolution, but think creation started it.

 

[dad]

I must have missed it when you provided verifiable evidence for your 'same states past' assertions.


Meanwhile, in real life, science marches on.

I must have missed it when you provided verifiable evidence for your 'different states past' assertions. They are not science.


Meanwhile, in real life, the truth marches on.

 

[dad]

If fossils are evidence for evolution--and indeed they are--then that does matter. Evidence matters.

Can we agree that evolution happened? Regardless of what nature you think existed, do you at least agree that evolution happened?

You think creation started it all off. Lots of people believe evolution, but think creation started it.

To be clear...I think a lot of evolution happened. It happened to created kinds, and started happening at creation about 6000 years ago.

 

[dad]

"Had to be designed" is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

Tell us about the "design" of the female hyena's pseudopenis.

Wrong. Common sense and intelligence tell us that a watch was created. Claiming the precise master machine of the stars and life and earth were NOT created is argument from incredulity, and ignorance.

 

[dad]

That might mean more if I was confident you knew what you were disagreeing with.

I disagree there was no creation of life, and that the evolving that did happen was after the fact. I disagree that you have any clue what variety of life existed on earth when early fossils were formed. I disagree that the fossil record is a record of life on earth, and deduce instead that it is a partial record of only certain types of life. I disagree that you can use genetics to determine common ancestors in the former nature years. I disagree that your little evo tree is a tree of life and observe instead that it is lobotomized, religious doctrine based insult to God and intelligence.

 

[dad]

That's not how statistical significance works. Again, checking for statistical significance is a mathematical calculation. You don't just arbitrarily declare something statistically significant.l organisms. It doesn't even make sense to try to construct them for non-living things in the first place.

Explain what math you use that negates similarities in creations of man?

 

[doubtingmerle]

To be clear...I think a lot of evolution happened. It happened to created kinds, and started happening at creation about 6000 years ago.

Right, but you cannot tell me if the horse and the donkey are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the zebra and eohippus are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the bear and the lion are the same kind. Perhaps the fish and the hippo are the same kind.

What was the starting point for evolution? Why can it not be the first cell?

 

[ScumYetServant]

Right, but you cannot tell me if the horse and the donkey are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the zebra and eohippus are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the bear and the lion are the same kind. Perhaps the fish and the hippo are the same kind.

What was the starting point for evolution? Why can it not be the first cell?

 

[ScumYetServant]

Watch this. Creation needs a creator. Evolution is a faith not fact.
"The Atheist Delusion" (Movie) - Why Millions Deny the Obvious

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Watch this. Creation needs a creator. Evolution is a faith not fact.
"The Atheist Delusion" (Movie) - Why Millions Deny the Obvious

I saw the first 10 minutes and I knew within the first five, why his argument was void. Watched the other five to see the responses. Pretty sure they are actors.
The guy doesn't know what a simile and metaphor is. His argument stands only if DNA is literally a book. It isn't. It is often related to a book because it has information, but it isn't a book.
For another example:
Suppose I saw 'He was a lion in the battle'.
You presume I meant the he used his claws, he bit his opponent's jugular vein to kill them.
A simile/metaphor is only valid for one similarity.
Also, don't watch this "movie". It was stupid and presented a flawed argument.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Watch this. Creation needs a creator. Evolution is a faith not fact.
"The Atheist Delusion" (Movie) - Why Millions Deny the Obvious

That's about as convincing as any other Ray Comfort nonsense. A pile of PRATTs, arguments from incredulity and misrepresentations of actual science.

If there's anything specific you found convincing and would like to have addressed then please point it out. Otherwise let's just accept it's a typical creationist propoganda fest.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Design can be ruled in when we see something had to be designed.

And yet you credit "The blind watchmaker", that is, evolution, as being responsible for some of that design. You say that God started with created kinds and the rest evolved from there. How much evolved from there? You won't even guess.

If some of the features we see were there from creation, and some are there because they evolved, how do you tell if a feature was there from the beginning or it evolved? And if you cannot tell the difference, how have you proven creation was needed at all?

 

[tas8831]

I must have missed it when you provided verifiable evidence for your 'different states past' assertions. They are not science.


Meanwhile, in real life, the truth marches on.

I am not the one claiming different states past, genius.