the self replicating watch argument

pitabread · Jun 6, 2018

xianghua said:
so what about this one?:

you can conclude design or not?

(image from wiki)

You posted this before and I gave you an answer before. Do you not remember?

I told you it looks like a human-manufactured object. Possibly a lamp shade or hubcap or something, which someone threw into the air and took a picture.

I made this conclusion based on pattern-recognition and knowledge of existing similar-shaped objects of known origin.

pitabread · Jun 6, 2018

xianghua said:
no. i said that it cant evolve by small steps. and these arent small steps.

Sure they are. It is an example of how it could have evolved step-wise with overlapping functions during the process.

It's an example of the very thing you keep claiming can't happen.

Phred · Jun 6, 2018

xianghua said:
say a a multicellular animal ufo and look like this:

That's a picture from July 31, 1952. It's likely a fake. I'd like to explain why. Today, when people have phones with high-resolution cameras with them all the time we should be seeing thousands if not millions of pictures of flying saucers popping up and yet, we don't. Why? I'll tell you. Because these are all faked. We have hundreds of blurry, grainy photographs. Most have been revealed as fakes. One famous one is a pie tin that was flung in from the side. But now that there are cameras everywhere faking these has become impossible. You can't claim there was a UFO over Flagstaff as there wouldn't be any other pictures to verify it or worse, there would be a few dozen other pictures of the sky that didn't have a UFO in them.

We're not being visited by aliens. The sheer size of the universe means that finding us among the stars is highly unlikely and even if they could find us getting here is a multi-generational effort. So "design?" Nope. Not likely.

doubtingmerle · Jun 7, 2018

xianghua said:
say a a multicellular animal ufo and look like this:

That's not an animal. It looks like a hubcap, perhaps.

If it's an animal, perhaps it is roadkill that somebody flung into the air.

Whatever, animals evolve.

xianghua · Jun 7, 2018

Speedwell said:
The precursor system evolved in small steps, too.

you have no evidence for that.

xianghua · Jun 7, 2018

pitabread said:
You posted this before and I gave you an answer before. Do you not remember?

I told you it looks like a human-manufactured object. Possibly a lamp shade or hubcap or something, which someone threw into the air and took a picture.

I made this conclusion based on pattern-recognition and knowledge of existing similar-shaped objects of known origin.

but what if this object is made from organic components?

xianghua · Jun 7, 2018

pitabread said:
Sure they are. It is an example of how it could have evolved step-wise with overlapping functions during the process.

It's an example of the very thing you keep claiming can't happen.

a protein transport system is simple? realy? can you show me what is the chance to get this first step?

pitabread · Jun 7, 2018

xianghua said:
a protein transport system is simple? realy? can you show me what is the chance to get this first step?

Again, you are changing your argument. The argument was that the flagellum can't evolve. The flagellum is not a protein-transport system.

If the flagellum can evolve based on a precursor system with a different function, then it demonstrates that the flagellum can evolve. Do you agree that the flagellum can evolve in this manner?

pitabread · Jun 7, 2018

xianghua said:
but what if this object is made from organic components?

What do you mean specifically by that? You mean if it was made of wood or something? Or are you suggesting it is a living creature?

Just so you know "made from organic components" is not the same as something being alive.

Though people have already explained the differences between living and non-living things. Do you remember those discussions?

bcbsr · Jun 7, 2018

xianghua said:
many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Thanks for writing. I've come up with a similiar argument. Suppose we discovered a planet on which there were factories which built robots and robots building factories which build robots. While there's the abiogenesis question as to how the first factory got built, which is just like the question as to how the first cell came into existence prior to self-replication, nonetheless would it be reasonable to explain the sophistication of ongoing production of robots and factories by mere evolutionary self-replication? I would argue no, it's not intuitively obvious, and therefore unreasonable without a designer.

Even better is the DNA code argument. In astronomy, the SETI program (the search of extraterrestrial intelligence) presumes that coded information implies intelligent life. For radio telescopes around the world are "listening" for such from the far reaches of space. Yet look at nature itself. Every organism has contained in it the DNA code - volumes of coded information concerning the construction and maintenance of the organism. What should we infer from that? To some it's intuitively obvious.

For articles I've written on this subject see Apologetics Bible Study Guides

pitabread · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
In astronomy, the SETI program (the search of extraterrestrial intelligence) presumes that coded information implies intelligent life.

SETI has nothing to do with searching for "coded information". Rather it has to do with searching for narrow band radio signals for which the only known source is artificially manufactured radio transmitters. The actual content of the signals is irrelevant.

bcbsr · Jun 7, 2018

pitabread said:
SETI has nothing to do with searching for "coded information". Rather it has to do with searching for narrow band radio signals for which the only known source is artificially manufactured radio transmitters. The actual content of the signals is irrelevant.

Well then the point is if "scientific" evidence for extraterrestial intelligence is something even more rudimentary than coded information, how much more does coded information (i.e. the DNA code) provide scientific evidence of the Creator.

Speedwell · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
Well then the point is if "scientific" evidence for extraterrestial intelligence is something even more rudimentary than coded information, how much more does coded information (i.e. the DNA code) provide scientific evidence of the Creator.

But you have to do more than just say so. The stochastic process of randomly distributed variation and selection is capable of generating the DNA "code." You need to provide some rational for the necessity of intervention in the process by a "designer" and evidence that such intervention has actually occurred.

pitabread · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
Well then the point is if "scientific" evidence for extraterrestial intelligence is something even more rudimentary than coded information, how much more does coded information (i.e. the DNA code) provide scientific evidence of the Creator.

It's not a case of one thing being more 'rudimentary' the other; we're talking about entirely different things.

Insofar as DNA 'code' providing evidence for a creator, it doesn't. We already know of natural mechanisms that can replicate and modify DNA to generate novel sequences.

bcbsr · Jun 7, 2018

Speedwell said:
But you have to do more than just say so. The stochastic process of randomly distributed variation and selection is capable of generating the DNA "code." You need to provide some rational for the necessity of intervention in the process by a "designer" and evidence that such intervention has actually occurred.

No, it is not scientifically proven that "The stochastic process of randomly distributed variation and selection is capable of generating the DNA "code."" That's just the hypothesis of evolutionists. It's because of statements like yours - mixing up hypothesis and fact - that has resulted in naturalists losing reputation in the eyes of Creationists.

bcbsr · Jun 7, 2018

pitabread said:
It's not a case of one thing being more 'rudimentary' the other; we're talking about entirely different things.

Insofar as DNA 'code' providing evidence for a creator, it doesn't. We already know of natural mechanisms that we replicate and modify DNA to generate novel sequences.

Let see. You're saying random mutations change the sequence of the DNA code. And that's the same as intelligent beings (you say "we") can do so in an intelligent fashion to come up with novel designs. Well that's pretty much my argument as well.

pitabread · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
You're saying random mutations change the sequence of the DNA code. And that's the same as intelligent beings (you say "we") can do so in an intelligent fashion to come up with novel designs.

There was a typo in my post. It sound have read, "We already know of natural mechanisms that can replicate and modify DNA to generate novel sequences."

It's possible to generate novel DNA sequences via those mechanisms without intelligent intervention .

doubtingmerle · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
aSuppose we discovered a planet on which there were factories which built robots and robots building factories which build robots. While there's the abiogenesis question as to how the first factory got built, which is just like the question as to how the first cell came into existence prior to self-replication, nonetheless would it be reasonable to explain the sophistication of ongoing production of robots and factories by mere evolutionary self-replication? I would argue no, it's not intuitively obvious, and therefore unreasonable without a designer.

Machines that build other machines? Surely they were designed by intelligent beings, computers, gods, or the like.

Alien animals that have babies? Surely we would suspect something like biological evolution was at least largely responsible for what we see.

What are we finding? Machines or animals?

Speedwell · Jun 7, 2018

bcbsr said:
No, it is not scientifically proven that "The stochastic process of randomly distributed variation and selection is capable of generating the DNA "code."" That's just the hypothesis of evolutionists. It's because of statements like yours - mixing up hypothesis and fact - that has resulted in naturalists losing reputation in the eyes of Creationists.

Evolution by randomly distributed variation and selection can be modeled mathematically as a stochastic process. As such, it can be proven mathematically to be capable of producing the kind of complex structures found in living things. The "hypothesis of evolutionists" in this case is that the mathematical model reflects accurately what is happening in nature. So far, that hypothesis has been borne out by the evidence.

I don't care about the reputation of evolutionary biologists with creationists is. As long as you keep creationism (and the theology that goes with it) out of the public schools it doesn't matter.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 7, 2018

xianghua invited me to this thread thinking that I would be interested. Sorry, xianghua, but I see only some ID or maybe creationist non-science. The OP last year has the double problem of labelling a graphic about the "flagellum motor" as an actual motor. The minor issue is that this is a graphic. It looks like a motor because it was drawn to look like a motor. I suspect that actual images would be a lot messier and look not designed. The main issue is that it is not thought to be a motor that popped out of nowhere. It is a structure that evolved out of structures with other functions. What you have is a "watch" that used to be a jack hammer.
From 2008: Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

The existence of the flagellum is not evidence for a designer because evolution also gives us the flagellum. Any evidence for a designer does not mean the designer is God when it could be advanced aliens.

the self replicating watch argument

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency