• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

the self replicating watch argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hitler was a Roman Catholic carrying out his final solution on the Jews.... so tell me, what does "Gott Mit Uns" translate to? From Five things you probably didn't know about World War II Germany - History Alive :

The German army had Chaplains
I’ve seen first-hand the expressions of shock and disbelief when people see a man dressed, not only in a German uniform, but in the uniform of a Wehrmacht Chaplain. This is quickly followed by comments such as, ‘The Germans didn’t believe in God’ or ‘The Germans weren’t religious’. This is false. During the 30s and 40s, 95% of the German population were Christian, and during that time many Wehrmacht soldiers continued to belong to their churches. Even on their uniform, their belt buckles were inscribed with ‘Gott mit uns’, which translates to ‘God is with us’. Germany had a strong tradition of appointing Catholic field Chaplains in the army, and this continued throughout the Second World War. Hundreds of photos exist of German soldiers participating in field services conducted by Chaplains, and many civilian accounts exist of German soldiers taking part in mass at the local church.​
The Irony further down about Operation Paperclip too...:
Operation Paperclip
Following the conclusion of the Second World War, many people believed it was the US that led the world’s technological advancement. This may or may not be true, but any and all success and progress that the US had following the war was because of one thing – German scientists. Nazi Germany was the pioneer in innovative technology such as, jet fighters and rocket science and while this may have come too late to help them in the war, the US was desperate to acquire this knowledge. The process of retrieving this knowledge came to be known as Operation Paperclip, a covert operation launched in 1945 with the aim of recruiting as many German scientists, technicians and engineers as possible before the Russians. Operation Paperclip was tremendously successful, with over 1500 scientists recruited, transported and employed in the US. In fact, most of the research relating to the Saturn V rockets and the Apollo spacecraft, came from Wernher von Braun, the scientist who had designed the V1 and V2 rockets.
... if only fundamentalists knew why scientists wish they didn't try to interfere so much with science and critical thinking in public education... It's because of the value it has to progress and technology, the US is losing that battle, I'm afraid...
Unless of course you pray to another God, or no god at all... then like the Caananites, God might love you, your family, even your infants and livestock to a vicious and grizzly death.
but it can evolve since we are talking about self replicating molecule. unless you dont believe in evolution?
Cars don't have DNA of their own.
so a car that can make a baby car can evolve naturally?
Cars don't have babies.
The source that supports this claim is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is the Body of Christ.
There's a body to examine? Where can we see it? That would settle everything once and for all!
Nope, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Have you come across other Christians on this site you might say aren't Christian By their actions here? I'm curious.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
a creature cant have a baby too, unless it has a replication system. so a creature cant evolve according to this criteria.
Creatures have replication systems, at least the ones that can evolve do.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Sorry if someone has already provided the following counter evidence. However, this argument was already trounced back in 2005 from Dover, Pennsylvania. It's very long, and I apologize. If you get antsy, forward to 1 hour and 6 minutes in....

do you want me to deal with a specific point? i can show you why they are actually wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
so a car that is able to make a small car isnt a car?
It doesn't make any difference. What's your argument--that if we give the same name to a naturally occurring object as a human designed object then the naturally occurring object must be designed, too?
 
Upvote 0

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
412
110
✟45,770.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

So why don't you actually name this new system of measurements you hint at to give us some way to discuss large scale evolutionary change? Do you merely want to speak vaguely about "genetic divergence" or something? You haven't really offered any alternative to taxonomic classification yet. I'm starting to suspect this is a tactic to water down discussion.

That's wonderful, but again irrelevant. I did mention that I was talking about "higher taxonomic classifications".

On the other hand, I would say genetics bears out our systems of classifications typically.

(Since I've been posting old articles, here's another one)

PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTION OF CYTOCHROME C


This is kind of funny, because in trying to explain why I'm wrong, you conceded that I'm right.

To highlight the points.

A good portion of Human DNA is non-coding with unknown function which does not affect phenotype.

Changes in gene expression (and by extension phenotype) don't typically change the underlying DNA.



Firstly, that was a counter-example of the claim that epigenetic factors cannot change genes of your genome.

Secondly, not all genes are equally as likely to be influenced by mutations. There are mutation hotspots wherein mutations are more likely to fall.
Theoretical analysis of mutation hotspots and their DNA sequence context specificity - ScienceDirect

Thirdly, I think perhaps I've miscommunicated in that you seem to think that I maintain epigenetics is the only way evolution occurs largely non-randomly. I would say there are many many more things at play, like Hox Genes, Introns, Exons, Transposons, Evo-devo toolkit genes, etc. Epigenetics is merely one type of non-random change.

Finally, there is a specific mechanism that determines which epigenetic changes will be stable transgenerational changes, and which won't. Please see this paper on the DNA Methylation sensing circuit.

Stable transgenerational epigenetic inheritance requires a DNA methylation-sensing circuit

-_- given that epigenetics is a new study in genetics, perhaps the most rapidly developing area of science within the past 20 years, why would you ever use a source more than a decade old (this source is from 2007)?
This is an appeal to novelty fallacy. Being old doesn't make something incorrect. There are plenty of old discoveries that are still widely considered correct. Moreover, if the basic argument is in error, you should be able to demonstrate why it is in error.



Human generations run about 20 years, mouse generations are about a year or two, yet we have found some pretty impressive results in our experiments with mouse models, so I find it entirely unconvincing to claim that nature requires 60+ years stable epigenetic changes.

In fact, the example you gave is probably the worst example you could have used. The lifespan of humans has only grown artificially based upon our technology and medicine. In the past, humans did not usually live 60+ years, and far beyond our capability to continually reproduce.


If you're looking for more examples epigenetics at work in multi-cellular organisms, there are plenty. Even the crowning jewel, Darwin's finches, his supposedly monumental example of natural selection appears to be based upon epigenetic alterations.

Finches

https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/24-08-17

Agouti Mice

https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/news030728-12.html



and they aren't less random in a sense of selecting for beneficial traits in multicellular organisms. And all of the gene mediated ones obviously are subject to genetic mutation themselves, not independent of it.

Actually, I'd beg to differ.

See Stress Directed Adaptive Mutations and Evolution.

Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

and The Origin of Mutants

The origin of mutants. - PubMed - NCBI

Plus, the paper I cited above showing that changes in Darwin's finches were epigenetic changes stands in as a testament against your claim. As Darwin observed, the size of finch's beaks oscillated in tune with their environment, which seems to be evidence of typical epigenetic phenotype switching.

Lastly on this point, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that have not really worked out lately. But chiefly, why do you assume these mechanisms are random? Especially when there is so much evidence that many non-random mechanisms are at play. Wherever there's a gap in our knowledge, you seem to assume everything is random.



But why so many similar adaptive strategies? Why do so many lines of evolution “navigate” themselves to similar 'solutions' in even extremely remote organisms like mammals and the katydid for example?
Convergent Evolution Between Insect and Mammalian Audition

Either we're to believe shortsighted stochastic processes accidentally look like only a certain set of predetermined solutions exist, or a set of predetermined solutions actually exist.


You're missing the point, natural selection can only select for the variability that is given to it, and this is shortsighted. Extremely complex convergent traits in very distant lineages should therefore be extremely unlikely.

I think I responded to all the relevant points to the core of our discussion. If I've missed something feel free to point it out.
 
Upvote 0

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
412
110
✟45,770.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sorry to butt in, but this sounds like an interesting discussion too.

If scientists were actually allowed to study the phenomena, you wouldn't be hearing about it ONLY from people at the church. Where are the scientific papers on the materials?
I think you have too much faith in systems. I used to think the same way though, that if any real miracles had been reported or investigated, that scientists would flock to it, and it would be hailed worldwide, etc. etc. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There's a lot that we don't know, so most cases that seem miraculous are just thrown on a pile with all the other papers published about spontaneous remission/regression.

Medical documentation might actually exist online. With a little more info from truefiction1, I'd be willing to look around.

Yet, it was with myrrh, which may actually just normally have properties which could apply to cancer treatment. What would be far more miraculous would be if it was just water, which doesn't treat anything but dehydration normally.

I feel like this is applying skepticism very unevenly. Even assuming myrrh had some kind of anti-cancer properties, (which I can definitely believe) what is the mechanism of action? Often times things have anti-cancer properties in vitro, but not in vivo, with no way of actually getting the solution into contact with the cancer itself. If anyone in any other context suggested that anointing someone with myrrh could have 'cured cancer' they'd be instantly written off as a quack.


I think you're misunderstanding pride. But it's a very common misunderstanding. Hating yourself, thinking that nothing you do is good enough isn't a result of humility. It comes from feeling a lack of self-worth. I find often that many people draw self-esteem from their intelligence. They feel valuable for being a certain kind of person (an intelligent person), and it influences a lot of people's decisions. An externally oriented source of self-worth, one that tends to be tested and measured by external sources like intelligence tests, or achievements, beauty, strength, etc. is in some sense going to be constantly under threat. (Perhaps I'm not using terminology correctly, but I think you can see what I'm saying)

A more secure source of self-worth comes from your merely being human.

Consider this.

All of those external sources of self-worth like beauty, or intelligence are valuable only because humans are valuable. If humans are worthless, none of those things matter anyway.

You're a human.

Therefore you're valuable, and you're worthy of love.

All that extra stuff is nice, but those aforementioned things can't really add to, or take away from your value much at all. They may improve the experience a bit, but can't determine value.

Back to Atheism,

In many cases (but certainly not all) Atheism can play a part in this as culturally Atheism tends to emphasize a “more rational than thou” sentiment. (This of course doesn't mean Atheism is wrong, but Atheistic culture tends to emphasize the rational, over and against those things deemed to be irrational or superstitious) this often causes people to find enjoyment in watching people do or say stupid things because they feel a sense of validation through the knowledge that they're more intelligent, and re-affirms their own value. Obviously, this isn't all Athiests, but I would say a good portion of New Atheists follow that path.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Firstly, those who embrace anti-christ ideologies are atheists, regardless of what they think about themselves. Secondly, many of the greatest scientists were people of faith. Thirdly, when the leaders of the communist regime in Russia finally figured out that they couldn't stand against the German military without the support of all of their nation's people (including its people of faith), they changed tactics and stopped persecuting them to death. Afterwards, Germany could not defeat them. And finally, not all Christians are against science. It just isn't a thing that they worship, because science and technology isn't going to save anyone from annihilation, whereas the worship of science (called scientism, which is a false religion), is leading man to annihilate the very world he lives in.
I'm not "fundamentalist".

Unless of course you pray to another God, or no god at all... then like the Caananites, God might love you, your family, even your infants and livestock to a vicious and grizzly death.
There are things unfathomably worse than death.

There's a body to examine? Where can we see it? That would settle everything once and for all!
The body is far too large and expansive to examine in the way you'd like, but its many parts can be looked upon and given serious consideration, because these parts often work great miraculous wonders, which can be sensed by anyone filled with the Holy Spirit.

Nope, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Have you come across other Christians on this site you might say aren't Christian By their actions here? I'm curious.
Hitler was a child of his father Satan. He is not a child of God who is one "outwardly": only if one is a child of God "inwardly" can one be rightly called catholic. Those children of God who love others as they love themselves do not murder others: they pray for others and show thme compassion.

Endnote* Where did Hitler's great vision actually lead his nation? Answer: to the creation of hell on earth -- not heaven. He did not believe that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is what has already saved the world, so he sacrificed instead the lives of millions of people all around the world in his and his people's quest to bring about an imagined utopia. Big - fat - lie.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

Except that when talking about cancers specifically it's known that they sometimes do go into spontaneous remission. How would one tell the difference between natural remission and a miracle?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.