the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

I asked you to re-read the parenthetical clause until it sinks in....you apparently didn't.

I said REPLICATION is not the same thing as CREATION. In other words, if you replicate something (the synthetic genome) you are not designing it, now are you?

so what this suppose to be?:

Design of a synthetic yeast genome

"We describe complete design of a synthetic eukaryotic genome, Sc2.0, a highly modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome reduced in size by nearly 8%, with 1.1 megabases of the synthetic genome deleted, inserted, or altered."

 

[xianghua]

because all the features of a mammal didn't exist back then, that's why.

we can claim they evolved twice.

 

[xianghua]

Which again show evidence of manufacture by their respective organisms. For example, beavers topple trees as a result of chewing them, which typically results in ends depicting a conical chewed pattern.

For example:

It is the process by which things are created which leaves tell-tale patterns as evidence of their manufacture.



And how exactly does the flagellum show evidence of deliberate manufacture?

and like this one:

its funny that you see design in a piece of wood but not in a rotary motor.

(image fromhttp://www.cafepress.com/accessresearch/982234)

 

[Larniavc]

if a mole can evolve twice why not a mammal?

A mole did not evolve twice. And it IS a mammal.

Do you actually know what convergent evolution means?

 

[46AND2]

so what this suppose to be?:

Design of a synthetic yeast genome

"We describe complete design of a synthetic eukaryotic genome, Sc2.0, a highly modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome reduced in size by nearly 8%, with 1.1 megabases of the synthetic genome deleted, inserted, or altered."

Explain to me how that is contrary to anything I have said?

 

[xianghua]

Explain to me how that is contrary to anything I have said?

you said that an artificial genome isnt the result of design. so i proved otherwise.

 

[xianghua]

A mole did not evolve twice.

its a mole-like creature. very similar to a regular mole. so if a mole-like creature can evolve twice why not a mammal-like creature?

 

[46AND2]

you said that an artificial genome isnt the result of design. so i proved otherwise.

No I didn't, I said replication is not design.

 

[bhsmte]

No I didn't, I said replication is not design.

He needs those strawmen.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

we can claim they evolved twice.

Whatever you want to do in your imaginary world is fine, just leave the rest of us out of it, kthxbye!

 

[Larniavc]

its a mole-like creature. very similar to a regular mole. so if a mole-like creature can evolve twice why not a mammal-like creature?

Because the Cambrian was BEFORE any mammal had evolved.

You can’t convergently evolve before you exist: Shirley, that is obvious?

 

[Anguspure]

Except the only way by which we know the flagellum to exist is by natural reproduction and never by design.

Natural reproduction does not provide explanation for origin. We are discussing origin here. Evolution and development after an origin of a reproductive organism is another thing altogether.

To assume a designer in the face of evidence to the contrary is what is foolishness.

I agree, however: Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. Richard Dawkins
Design and purpose is evident in biology so an honest student will follow the evidence where it leads.

We only have the theory of evolution that both explains the diversity and processes involved, and these processes have been repeatedly observed and documented.

Darwins molecular fiddler provides one explantation for development but can never provide explanation for origin, and does not invent anything new.
There is no plausible explanation for biogenesis except for the explanation that recognises the design and purpose evident.

Where is this 'designer' and why do we never see this 'designer' designing anything,

The language of biology and the engineering developments that we have copied from biology is sprinkled unavoidsbly with design language. Clearly the phenomina is evident and we see what the Designer has designed.
Do you deny that the Model T Ford was designed? I do not see Henry Ford tinkering with it today, are you going to suggest that the designer is not evident?

rather we just see ever so slightly modified organisms being selectively filtered by their environment, leaving the more improved organisms to reproduce the next generation of slightly modified organisms to repeat this endless process. This process of Evolution adequately explains all the biodiversity we have without having to add imaginary layers of interference over and above it.

Conversely the only evidence we have of mutation leading to change at a rate that is even remotely close to that required for tje diversity we observe, causes terrible conditions and disease a death.
Actual beneficial mutation at the molecular level is extremely rare.
So why has a supposed natural process taken a holiday?

1+1 equalling 2 is verifiable, so bad analogy. All the processes that lead to the biological diversity of life we see today has been observed and is well documented.

The documentation is all classification (and very shaky classification at that). The only actual observations of beneficial molecular evolution that we have occuring in the natural environment can be counted on the fingers of one hand and are occuring at a rate that is far to slow to supply a plausible explanation for the phenomina.

We've even been able to replicate natural selection (ironically becoming artificial selection) in the lab to produce quite a number of novel structures in a variety of lifeforms, no design needed.

LOL. The elephant in the room of course is the designer of the experiment.
I suppose that you will try to tell me that your post was not designed either.

Because of the tell-tale tool marks and evidence of manufacturing by a designer - not because we just infer design.
Because of the evidence of design due to the tell-tale tool marks and manufacturing processes, not because of inference.

No tools suitable for the job have been found in the location. The inference you are making is one from design. You asdume that certain marks reveal purpose and itelligent activity and therefore invoke tools and a tool user to explain this.

so it doesn't apply to things that aren't invented things then, so we can discard that idea. Also, your pic isn't viewable - some sites don't allow third-party linking to them.

It is a mathematical tool for determining whether accidental invention is plausable as an explanation.

.....so, it has tell-tale signs of manufacture and design by a designer then, probably because we've seen designers designing and manufacturing them?

In all of our experience the appearance of design and purpose is only explained by one cause, that is a designer. To be expected to suspend this inference for the sake of a few fools that wish to deny the presence of design in biology is absurdity in the extreme.

Because there are tell-tale signs of manufacture, such as controlled chipping of the stone, shaping of diverse materials that don't come together naturally, and likely an established history of existing tribal manufacture of the same, or similar tools to the ones found there, etc.

To be consistant with your previous assertion, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, such as a person still engaged doing these things, one would be better off putting supposed tool marks and dislocation from where rocks like that are commonly found down to natural physical laws, perhaps that have yet to be discovered. Surely you should be telling me to have faith in Science to find an alternative explanation and not jump to conclusions of intelligent interference where there is no evidence. After all funny shaped rocks are found in strange places all over the world, and we have even designed an experiment that produces these sorts of marks on rocks without any design at all.

Biological organisms and structures don't have any of that.

On the contrare, they are chocker with it. Even the most outspoken opposition to Creationism admits it.

 

[Anguspure]

I know what it purports to be.

I’m asking what units it is measured in.

FC is a mathematical tool for assesing the likelihood of a functionally coherent thing being invented by accident. So the language of mathematical probability is the unit.

 

[Speedwell]

In all of our experience the appearance of design and purpose is only explained by one cause, that is a designer. To be expected to suspend this inference for the sake of a few fools that wish to deny the presence of design in biology is absurdity in the extreme.

No, it's a a falsehood, nothing but IDist propaganda that we use functional complexity as evidence for design except where it might lead to God. Many people who reject ID as the nonsense it is already believe in God as creator. We believe God's design is implicit in biology, but only as an unfalsifiable proposition. This we find sufficiently satisfying, but IDists are trying to use science to prove that design is present in biology so that they can shove the radical Calvinism of the Discovery Institute up our noses, along with their ugly right-wing political agenda.

 

[46AND2]

FC is a mathematical tool for assesing the likelihood of a functionally coherent thing being invented by accident. So the language of mathematical probability is the unit.

Can you name one object identified as being designed PRIOR to confirmation by means other than appearance? In other words, what object has been found which we claimed IS designed based on functional coherence probability alone, and subsequently found the confirmation for it?

 

[Astrophile]

by the way: according to this if we will see a ufo you will not conclude design since you have never seen someone who built a ufo.

I have read many accounts of sightings of UFOs. Except for faked photographs and mis-identifications of aircraft, balloons, rockets and other human-made flying machines, none of them have provided me with convincing evidence of design.

 

[pitabread]

its funny that you see design in a piece of wood but not in a rotary motor.

Not "design". Signs of manufacture. In the case of that piece of wood, it contains specific chew marks indicating that it was felled by a beaver chewing it.

Now if you want to argue that a flagellum contains signs of deliberate manufacture, then you need to specify what they are (and moreso than simply posting a 3D diagram of one).

 

[46AND2]

Can you name one object identified as being designed PRIOR to confirmation by means other than appearance? In other words, what object has been found which we claimed IS designed based on functional coherence probability alone, and subsequently found the confirmation for it?

You know...cause we should know what the success rate is of your functional coherence hypothesis. Has it ever been tested on things that you didn't think were supernaturally designed? Has it ever been shown to be an accurate predictor of designed objects? If not, why should we accept it as a valid source for determining design?

 

[Larniavc]

FC is a mathematical tool for assesing the likelihood of a functionally coherent thing being invented by accident. So the language of mathematical probability is the unit.

What is the unit called?

 

[pitabread]

If a Designer is recognised then the purpose of the Designer will eventually have to be taken into account, and how each of us will be held to avount for has he has done so.

Why assume this at all? I always find it odd how IDists/creationists seem to jump so easily from "evidence of design" to theological implications.

There is a pretty wide gap separating those two concepts.