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.
You are hoping he will read a paragraph longer than a tweet?You might be interested in this, if you haven't already seen it: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
Why not? Parallel evolution of related traits is a well-understood phenomenon. Why wouldn't it work for evolving cars?i dont think so. since a minimal car need at least several parts it cant evolve stepwise by evolution.
You mean you don't know? You've been arguing for a specific concept of "creation" and denying all others and you don't know?
Thanks for the link.Since genetic algorithms, it's clear that specifications can evolve (and become more fit thereby). So I guess we should say that mechanical devices can't presently evolve.
Von Neumann machines have been conceptually around for a long time:
Self-replicating spacecraft - Wikipedia
No, that's wrong:
they are homologous, not identical.
So what would have to happen to make this into a flagellum? The rod would have to rotate more efficiently, and it would have to be longer. Neither of these would be that difficult under natural selection. If the apparatus provided any motion at all, subsequent mutations increasing efficiency would certainly be favored.
but how we can change a non motion system into a motion system stepwise? think about changing a compass into a watch. we only need to add a motion system to the compass to make it move like a watch. but this change need at least several parts at once. so we cant do it stepwise.
so what is your first part to evolve a car?Why not? Parallel evolution of related traits is a well-understood phenomenon. Why wouldn't it work for evolving cars?
Actually, since you are the only one talking about cars that could have babies biologically, wouldn't that be a question for you? Nobody here is buying your concept of cars that reproduce biologically.so what is your first part to evolve a car?
I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.
And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.
Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.
Interesting , God made man , man made that watch. That watch will stop and rust away unless man takes care of it. God takes care of all nature He created, as we know from the sparrow. Anything man made has to be cared for by man but God can destroy and will destroy all that is made on earth. The lava flow on the Big Island shows us we can build but this is not our home. God even created the elements that will cause that watch to rust away. God Bless
2 Timothy 3Most people don't believe this. Why do you think that is?
No assumption is involved. Iin this scenario xianghua has posited a self-replicating watch with evolutionary potential. Implicit in such a scenario is that the watch has evolved, not just "popped into existence". Thus I am following the constraints of xinghua's scenario in my comments. Those constraints are not assumptions, but specifications chosen by xianghua.You are assuming such an object doesn't pop into existence, no?
It may be based on your school of thought, but it is still an assumption.
No assumption is involved. Iin this scenario xianghua has posited a self-replicating watch with evolutionary potential. Implicit in such a scenario is that the watch has evolved, not just "popped into existence". Thus I am following the constraints of xinghua's scenario in my comments. Those constraints are not assumptions, but specifications chosen by xianghua.
The alternative explanation is that many people are persuaded by evidence and reasoned argument to an extent greater than that they accord to explanations dependent upon faith. A corollorary of this situation is that debates that revolve around faith based positions versus evidence based positions are likely to be irreconcilable.2 Timothy 3
It was in 2011 when the 9.0 earthquake hit Fukushima Nuclear plants the Lord gave me "beginning of the end." That was some time ago and God's times is nothing like ours. Yes we are in end times and we know from Peter if God wants He can make 1000 years happen in a day. Thanks for question...The alternative explanation is that many people are persuaded by evidence and reasoned argument to an extent greater than that they accord to explanations dependent upon faith. A corollorary of this situation is that debates that revolve around faith based positions versus evidence based positions are likely to be irreconcilable.
I take it from your quote that you believe we are currently in end times. Is that correct?
Thank you for your reply. I ask of you only one thing: do not stand in the way of, or through inaction prejudice, the efforts to make this world a better place, by those of us who do not believe in end times. This should present no conflict with your beliefs.It was in 2011 when the 9.0 earthquake hit Fukushima Nuclear plants the Lord gave me "beginning of the end." That was some time ago and God's times is nothing like ours. Yes we are in end times and we know from Peter if God wants He can make 1000 years happen in a day. Thanks for question...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?