the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

So if I knew only three Indians, and those three Indians were walking single file, then I could conclude that all Indians always walk single file?

Interesting. I didn't realize that was logically valid.

so a motor can evolve naturally then? good to know. what is the evidence for that claim?

 

[xianghua]

1. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are man made- then the flagellum is man made too

incorrect. since the flagellum is a motor that clearly was not made by human. so not all motor we know about are men made.

2. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are made of non-natural materials- then the flagellum is made of non-natural materials too

again incorrect since the flagellum is made from organic components your first part in your claim is incorrect.

 

[Speedwell]

incorrect. since the flagellum is a motor that clearly was not made by human. so not all motor we know about are men made.

Then we can't know that all motors are designed

again incorrect since the flagellum is made from organic components your first part in your claim is incorrect.

It's not a claim, it's a parody of your bad logic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

whats wrong? maybe an image will help here. this is the first possible tree among 3 different species:


View attachment 226018
do you agree?

Correct. That is one of 3 possible rooted trees for 3 species.

 

[Speedwell]

so a motor can evolve naturally then? good to know. what is the evidence for that claim?

The existence of the flagellum.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a motor can evolve naturally then? good to know.

So if the only 3 Indians I ever saw were walking single file, it might be possible for Indians to walk beside each other? Good to know.

 

[pitabread]

whats wrong? maybe an image will help here.

Indeed, some images will help.

There is one possible unrooted tree for 3 taxa (all three taxa are joined via one node):

There are 3 possible rooted trees for 3 taxa:

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

That's odd. My position of common descent of life seems cohesive to the vast majority of scientists. Your position, however does not seem cohseive to me. For instance, I asked you if the polar bear and pine tree could be descended from a common ancestor, and you said you didn't care. Now you write:

As 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.

Wait, now you do care? How can that be cohesive? If sometimes you say polar bears might be related to pine trees, and sometimes you say they are not, that is incohesive.

Lets' reword my questions and see if you can actually give cohesive answers:

1. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the black bear? (You have answered this "no")
2. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the sloth bear?
3. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the giant panda?
4. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the red panda?
5. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the walrus?
6. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the dog?
7. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the cat?
8. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the hippo?
9. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the crocodile?
10. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the grasshopper?
11. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the pine tree? (You have answered this question yes")

So of the 11 questions, you have only answered 2. Do you or do you not think the polar bear may be related to those other animals? Where is the dividing point where you start caring? Why do you pick that dividing point, and not another equally valid point?

The evidence indicates all these lifeforms are related. For the sake of science, I care that people are informed about reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad,

I'm back. I don't find your explanation of the fossil record to be coherent. Let me repeat the questions I had for you, and then address your attempts at answering. Here were my questions:

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. 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.
​

And here is your response:

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.

Which totally ignores the question. Why is it, that eohippus leaves fossils only in a small range which dates to about 55 million years ago? Why do Mesohippus fossils always date 37 to 32 million years ago? Why do Miohippus date only 32 to 25 million years ago? Why do they appear in a sequence? Does it not make sense that this might be because they were evolving with time? You are not even attempting to address this. Do you care to actually address the question? Were there multiple different natures that fossilized different species at different time? Or is it just luck that they are sorted the way they are? Or did they evolve from each other?

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?

Which isn't even an attempt to address the question. Care to actually address the question?

If you are going to appeal to yet a different ad hoc nature for every fact you must explain, your answer becomes extremely unlikely. Real science makes predictions based on what is known. If the predictions fail, something is wrong. We are not allowed an infinite regress of ad hoc explanations upon ad hoc explanations upon ad hoc explanations.

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.

Wait, birds might all be descended from dinos? You accept that maybe the penguin, the hummingbird, the ostrich, the hawk, and the giant extinct elephant birds might all have evolved from a common ancestor, who might have been a dinosaur?

Sometimes you seem so open to evolution, but you are never clear how far you accept evolution.

 

[xianghua]

The existence of the flagellum.

so the existence of a motor prove that a motor can evolve naturally? ok.

 

[pitabread]

can you point what is the logical error here?

It's the false equivalence fallacy, in other words assuming that since two objects share one property in common that they then share all properties in common. It's no different that claiming that since I own a car and it's red, therefore my neighbor's car is also red. This assumes that all cars share identical properties with my car.

to show its a logical error you need to prove that a flagellum can evolve naturlaly. but you cant.

I don't have to prove anything about the flagellum's evolution to show the logical error. Heck, even if the flagellum were the product of design, the logical error is still the same.

It's like saying I own an apple and an apple is red. I own a car, therefore my car is red. Even if the car really is red, the color of the apple has nothing to do with the color of the car. They are completely independent objects.

Likewise, the origin of an electrical motor has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of a flagellum. They are two completely independent things that have little in common besides that they both can make something spin.

 

[dad]

That's odd. My position of common descent of life seems cohesive to the vast majority of scientists. Your position, however does not seem cohseive to me. For instance, I asked you if the polar bear and pine tree could be descended from a common ancestor, and you said you didn't care. Now you write:


Wait, now you do care? How can that be cohesive? If sometimes you say polar bears might be related to pine trees, and sometimes you say they are not, that is incohesive.

Lets' reword my questions and see if you can actually give cohesive answers:

1. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the black bear? (You have answered this "no")
2. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the sloth bear?
3. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the giant panda?
4. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the red panda?
5. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the walrus?
6. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the dog?
7. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the cat?
8. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the hippo?
9. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the crocodile?
10. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the grasshopper?
11. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the pine tree? (You have answered this question yes")

You really think claiming a bear came from a grasshopper is cohesive?
Since science doesn't know at all, who really cares if they fabricate a semi cohesive fable?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You really think claiming a bear came from a grasshopper is cohesive?

No, I do not think a bear came from a grasshopper. I think a bear and a grasshopper had a common ancestor.

Do you or do you not care if they had a common ancestor?

 

[Speedwell]

so the existence of a motor prove that a motor can evolve naturally? ok.

Yes. The mistake you make is in assuming that if a motor evolved naturally it wasn't designed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Since science doesn't know at all, who really cares if they fabricate a semi cohesive fable?

I care.

If any scientist creates a semi cohesive fable and passes it off as science, there are a whole lot of scientists that would be very upset.

 

[dad]

Dad,

I'm back. I don't find your explanation of the fossil record to be coherent. Let me repeat the questions I had for you, and then address your attempts at answering. Here were my questions:

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.​

No. What I said was that most living animals could not likely fossilize at all in the former nature.

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.

The point there was that the different nature may have messed up your dates around that time. Could it be that all those creatures were still in the other nature?

So you basically abandoned that, and switched to dumb luck as the cause of the sequence.

Not sure why you invent this nonsense. No luck involved. The fossil sequence doe not matter too much, since all the fossils represent such a ting fraction of life on earth when the fossils were laid down.

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?

100% if the orses, like man and most other creatures living could not leave fossilized remains!
​

Which totally ignores the question. Why is it, that eohippus leaves fossils only in a small range which dates to about 55 million years ago?

That range is a lot smaller than you thought!
The periods from 70 million to maybe about several million all represent possibly a very short time. So if the flood was 70 million of your imaginary years ago, the nature change after that may not have been till some 5000-10,000 of your years ago. That period of 60 million plus years (imaginary so called science belief based time) may represent only centuries.

Why do Mesohippus fossils always date 37 to 32 million years ago?

If they were in the former nature, then all it would mean is that the pattern of isotopes at the time is interpreted by your belief system as being 32-7 million years old.

Why do Miohippus date only 32 to 25 million years ago? Why do they appear in a sequence?

The dates would be more in the thousands of years ago. They could fossilize, and the fossils we see represent these adapted creatures at a particular stage and time in the former nature. Naturally they have a sequence.

Does it not make sense that this might be because they were evolving with time?

Of course if they could fossilize they likely were kinds that were quite adapted/evolved. Over time..yes..centuries and decades. You big error is the same state past dating methods.

Wait, birds might all be descended from dinos? You accept that maybe the penguin, the hummingbird, the ostrich, the hawk, and the giant extinct elephant birds might all have evolved from a common ancestor, who might have been a dinosaur?

No.

I suggested MAYBE birds adapted to land in some instances, and evolved to dinos. At the same time the dinos lived the birds also lived, but could not fossilize!

Sometimes you seem so open to evolution, but you are never clear how far you accept evolution.

All evolution started at created kinds. A.L.L

 

[dad]

No, I do not think a bear came from a grasshopper. I think a bear and a grasshopper had a common ancestor.

Do you or do you not care if they had a common ancestor?

They did not have a common ancestor, nothing to care about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They did not have a common ancestor, nothing to care about.

Ah, so the polar bear might share an ancestor with the black bear but not the grasshopper. Might it share an ancestor with a red panda?

 

[doubtingmerle]

​

All evolution started at created kinds. A.L.L

What does that even mean? Did the polar bear and walrus come from the same created kind? You refuse--refuse!-- to answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow, what do you expect to accomplish with such word salad?

Do you realize that I wrote to you in paragraphs? The paragraphs, when taken as a whole, express a concept. But you dive in and break everything into tweet size chunks, and then use each chunk as a chance to sound off on something you have said many times before and we have always acknowledged that you said it. So what do you want people to do? Repeat the entire concept of your position in every sentence? If I utter a sentence that does not echo back every thing you ever said, then will you respond by just repeating things you said before? How does that move anything forward?

But that is how things go in The Self Replicating Argument Watch thread. We just keep watching the same arguments replicate over and over again.

If there is anybody following this, please notice that there was a point in the paragraphs I wrote, a point that was totally lost when Dad broke things into tiny bites.

Not sure why you invent this nonsense. No luck involved. The fossil sequence doe not matter too much, since all the fossils represent such a ting fraction of life on earth when the fossils were laid down.
​

We were looking at the series of horse fossils with time, from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus, etc., and I was asking you why you think they consistently appear in that order. And it seemed to be you were saying that it was just luck that all the eohippus went in one layer, all the mesohippus in another, etc. But now you are back to nature somehow selecting only eohippus fossils when the layer that dates to 55 million years was layed down, and nature somehow selecting only mesohippus fossil in a later layer, and nature somehow selecting only a different kind of fossil in the next layer. So you seem to be back to nature constantly changing which fossils it selects. That makes no sense.

100% if the orses, like man and most other creatures living could not leave fossilized remains!

You totally ignored the question. Again, there are fossils that date from 65 million years ago to 1 million years ago, but the eohippus all appear at about 55 million years ago. Why is that? Your answer makes no attempt to address the question.

And please don't repeat that you think it was quicker than that--we already know you think that. My question is about the order.

The dates would be more in the thousands of years ago. They could fossilize, and the fossils we see represent these adapted creatures at a particular stage and time in the former nature. Naturally they have a sequence.

Wait, now you suggest that maybe eohippus evolved into something like mesohippus which evolved into something like miohippus? That was my point all along. Now you are saying that I might be right?