the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

but its look similar to a motor that made by humans.

So what? "Looks similar" is not evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

The traits do not destroy the entire tree

yes it is. since its made a different tree.

 

[xianghua]

So what? "Looks similar" is not evidence of design.

so something that look very similar to a watch isnt evidence for design then.

 

[Speedwell]

so something that look very similar to a watch isnt evidence for design then.

Right.

 

[xianghua]

Right.

so this isnt evidence for design then since its only similar to a bicylce?:

(image from Rowerowy rysunek na piasku zdjęcie stock. Obraz złożonej z fala - 50002242)

 

[pitabread]

so something that look very similar to a watch isnt evidence for design then.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

I know you don't ever want to acknowledge this, but I'm going to keep bringing it up since this fallacy underpins your entire argument for design. And it is why your argument fails.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is evidence that supports evolution. But the complexity of creation shoots down all of the evidence we have so far.

How does complexity shoot down the argument from nested hierarchy?

How does complexity shoot down all the transitional fossils?

How does complexity shoot down the chronology of common ancestors?

 

[Speedwell]

so this isnt evidence for design then since its only similar to a bicylce?:

(image from Rowerowy rysunek na piasku zdjęcie stock. Obraz złożonej z fala - 50002242)

It is not similar to a bicycle.

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes it is. since its made a different tree.

Really? If there are a trillion trillion trillion possible trees, and we narrow it down to one or two, depending on which of two very close nodes is first, then all of the tree is shot down? It does not matter if there is overwhelming evidence for the other branches, if one node is in question it is all worthless?

Can you name one person who agrees with you on this?

 

[durangodawood]

so this isnt evidence for design then since its only similar to a bicylce?:

(image from Rowerowy rysunek na piasku zdjęcie stock. Obraz złożonej z fala - 50002242)

Looks like a person tried to draw a bike in the sand with a stick.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no its not since most parts fit well with the car phylogeny.

Maybe we should rename this thread The self replicating posts thread. I just keep seeing replicas of xianghuas posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but its look similar to a motor that made by humans.

And as we have seen already, "it looks like x" is not a criteria by which we differentiate artificial things from natural things.

 

[Mr Darcy]

How does complexity shoot down the argument from nested hierarchy?

How does complexity shoot down all the transitional fossils?

How does complexity shoot down the chronology of common ancestors?

It is more complex than within the ability of man to design. To suggest that something so complex, interactive and successful simply happened by accident simply defies credibility. I don't care how many monkeys, typewriters and years you throw at it.

 

[pitabread]

It is more complex than within the ability of man to design.

Interestingly enough we see the same sort of thing as a result of genetic algorithms. It speaks to how recursive, evolutionary processes can result in complex outputs to the point of baffling those that designed the algorithms in the first place.

Examples:

On the Origin of Circuits
Radio emerges from the electronic soup

 

[dad]

Glad to find dad so open to evolution.

Me:

Suppose I add in the black bear? [as sharing an ancestor of the polar bear]. The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus? The dog? The cat? The hippo? The crocodile? The pine tree? How far back can one go and still be fine, in your view? Where is the dividing point where one has gone so far that they have descended into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables?​

Dad:

​

So that is where it stands. I have presented the evidence for evolution. When I ask dad if he thinks the polar bear shares a common ancestor with the pine tree, he says he does not much care.

I win.

Actually your position is hopelessly untenable and a dead end. You cannot and do not know whether creation is where any and all evolving started. You do not know the complete list of animals alive in any early age, but rely on comically incomplete fossils, as if they represented what was alive in entirety. You do not know what nature the evolving that did take place happened in...which means you have no possible inkling of time involved. You do not have any samples of DNA from the Cambrian, or KT, or etc etc. You do not take into account the rapid evolution of the former nature, nor the conditions of the pre and post flood world that needed adapting to.

s for bears, I could allow polar and grizzly and black bears coming from one kind, but we don't really know, so I have no need to take a position on that. As for a pine tree being related to any animal, forget about it.

You do not win, you do not even have a sensible and cohesive position.

 

[dad]

Not necessarily. What about the possibility that God designed evolution?

Evolution taken to mean the origin of life is not creation.

 

[dad]

Yes, only a fraction of all animals that ever lived have left fossils that have been found, but so what? The fossils we have found make a strong case for the history of life on earth. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part

The issue is whether fossils found in any age represent a good sampling of life on earth at that time. NOT whether there are a lot of fossils.

How can you explain the sequence of the fossil record? At first you appealed to a different nature that somehow fossilized only extinct animals in the past. But it was pointed out to you that horse family members, for instance, are found in a sequence from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus etc. on up through the fossil record. If you were going to appeal to a different nature, you would need many different natures to explain the sorting.

Wrong. Not if IN the different nature, most life could not leave fossil remains! Now if all the animals you cite were all IN the former nature, then they would just be the ones that could leave remains. At the same time these lived, there were lions and crows and bears etc etc etc. Probably actual horses lived also at the time!

Your mistake is believing that the few fossils we do have represent some evolutionary ancestors to the horse.

So you basically abandoned that, and switched to dumb luck as the cause of the sequence. But if all ancient horses lived throughout the cenozoic, then what are the odds that many eohippus would be found, with all in a narrow window of the fossil record? If you appeal to dumb luck to explain that this happened against the odds, even xianghua could explain where you are wrong.

No luck was involved.

God set up creation to dispose of remains of man and most animals. Now we do not know the reasons some creatures could leave remains. I suspect maybe when a creature became too far adapted/evolved from the original kind, then they possibly could leave fossil remains. Who knows? That could explain why IF birds evolved in some cases into dinos, and/or back again into birds...they THEN would be able to leave fossils. Hence, we see dino fossils!! Ha.

Ah, so when we look at DNA and find the family tree, and then speculate what the common ancestor looked like, we should label it as speculation?

Because you look at them now in this present nature, then you speculate genes were the same in the far past, because you assume nature was the same. No proof. No samples. No evidence. That is belief.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is more complex than within the ability of man to design. To suggest that something so complex, interactive and successful simply happened by accident simply defies credibility. I don't care how many monkeys, typewriters and years you throw at it.

I don't think you have proven a creator, but suppose you had. How would that prove that the creator did not use evolution as his tool?

If not evolution, how did God do it? Were there millions of creation events where--poof--suddenly an animal appeared out of nothing? What is you evidence that God used that method instead of evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evolution taken to mean the origin of life is not creation.

Can you translate this into English, please?

 

[Mr Darcy]

Interestingly enough we see the same sort of thing as a result of genetic algorithms. It speaks to how recursive, evolutionary processes can result in complex outputs to the point of baffling those that designed the algorithms in the first place.

Examples:

On the Origin of Circuits
Radio emerges from the electronic soup

And we are surrounded by electromagnetism like fish are surrounded by water.

The more we know about life, the more complex we know it is, and the more hurdles "evolution" must jump through to be taken seriously as a factor in the origin of species. i.e. the more we know, the more we know we don't know.