the self replicating watch argument

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

Skreeper said:
I see you're new here so I'll cut you some slack. Michael Behe and his irreducible complexity is a PRATT (Point refuted a thousand times). You can read more on that here.

You'll have to come up with something new that isn't fallacious or just flat out wrong.

Haha I need slack, nice one.

I read your piece. Shame. It cites co-option as an explanation.

The flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is not evolvable—step by step—by naturalistic processes and the removal of any of its parts would render it useless.
Co-option has never been observed to occur in nature. All we have from the Darwinian scientific community is a speculative oasis of scenarios but no supporting evidence.

Good on you for basing your conclusion on no evidence at all.

Again, this is simply not satisfactory.

Speedwell · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
The flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is not evolvable—step by step—by naturalistic processes...

Yes, that is what you are trying to convince us of. So far you have failed.

doubtingmerle · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Wait, do you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival? That it was goal directed?

No.

We think the forces of nature made the various proteins for various functions in the cell. Later cells were able to use these existing proteins for functions such as injecting poison into other cells or spinning a flagellum. See The Flagellum Unspun.

How do you think the first cell with a flagellum came into existence. Did it arrive as a result of modification of the DNA of previous bacteria, or did it pop into existence out of nothing?

RealityCheck01 · Jun 10, 2018

bcbsr said:
My point is not the DNA code in particular, but rather coded information.

That is not all I wrote.
11 June 2018 bcbsr: An argument about an imaginary "evolutionary self-replication"

You wrote a "Even better is the DNA code argument" and then irrelevant SETI stuff. What SETI may detect is a signal that is cannot be explained except by aliens transmitting the signal, e.g. a series of prime numbers. That is not about DNA.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 10, 2018

bcbsr said:
Thing is atheistic naturalists ....

11 June 2018 bcbsr: Denial of the fact that many Christian and theist scientists contributed to evolution and believe in the evidence for evolution.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Sorry I must be missing something.

What you are missing is that the flagellum motor is an example of the several failures of irreducible complexity pseudoscience. At least 1 of its parts are functional and thus it is not "irreducible" .

RealityCheck01 · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
...(please read up on Michael Behe and his mousetrap to see this).

Maybe you should follow your own advice: The mousetrap example

In his 2008 book Only A Theory, biologist Kenneth R. Miller challenges Behe's claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex.[51] Miller observes that various subsets of the five components can be devised to form cooperative units, ones that have different functions from the mousetrap and so, in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice.

This is the fundamental ignorance of biology that this pseudoscience is based on. Function is not constant. Evolution can change the function of a mechanism.

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

doubtingmerle said:
No.

We think the forces of nature made the various proteins for various functions in the cell. Later cells were able to use these existing proteins for functions such as injecting poison into other cells or spinning a flagellum. See The Flagellum Unspun.

How do you think the first cell with a flagellum came into existence. Did it arrive as a result of modification of the DNA of previous bacteria, or did it pop into existence out of nothing?

Lol,

That’s a false dilemma if I ever saw your one. You must have been home ding under a rock,
There’s a 3rd hypothesis known as the God hypothesis.

Also, you don’t get the assembly instructions for free for a multipart machine from a blind mindless unguided process.

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
Maybe you should follow your own advice: The mousetrap example

This is the fundamental ignorance of biology that this pseudoscience is based on. Function is not constant. Evolution can change the function of a mechanism.

Ok ok I’ll help out:

reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap.
Intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps.
If intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell.

Get it now?

You are willing to digest extravagant levels of contrivance to hold to your view.

pitabread · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
There’s a 3rd hypothesis known as the God hypothesis.

The supernatural is not testable by science; ergo, it's not possible to have a scientific hypothesis based on God.

Unless of course you have discovered a way to scientifically test the supernatural: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

bcbsr · Jun 10, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
That is not all I wrote.
11 June 2018 bcbsr: An argument about an imaginary "evolutionary self-replication"

You wrote a "Even better is the DNA code argument" and then irrelevant SETI stuff. What SETI may detect is a signal that is cannot be explained except by aliens transmitting the signal, e.g. a series of prime numbers. That is not about DNA.

Apparently you didn't actually follow the argument.

bcbsr · Jun 10, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
11 June 2018 bcbsr: Denial of the fact that many Christian and theist scientists contributed to evolution and believe in the evidence for evolution.

Their position is that God designed life, which is contrary to the those evolutionists who are atheistic naturalists - the theory that life came about purely by stochaistic processes without divine intervention.

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
What you are missing is that the flagellum motor is an example of the several failures of irreducible complexity pseudoscience. At least 1 of its parts are functional and thus it is not "irreducible" .

RealityCheck01 said:
Maybe you should follow your own advice: The mousetrap example

This is the fundamental ignorance of biology that this pseudoscience is based on. Function is not constant. Evolution can change the function of a mechanism.

Do you have evidence for that? That evolution can can change function?
This is called co-option or exaption.
The process would be similar to having parts of a laptop computer recombining, in small gradual steps, to generate a more efficient CPU without losing machine function.
Again ,co-option has never been observed to occur in nature. All we have from the Darwinian scientific community is a speculative oasis of scenarios but no supporting evidence.

Maybe you like blind faith then?

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

pitabread said:
The supernatural is not testable by science; ergo, it's not possible to have a scientific hypothesis based on God.

Unless of course you have discovered a way to scientifically test the supernatural: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

Red herring alert.

We are talking about design and agency. Are you an agent? Can I postulate Henry Ford as an explicator at the level of an agent to explain the scientific mechanism of internal combustion?

If I can’t what then?

Again you show signs of having adopted Scientism as your preferred world view, science is the only way to truth.

pitabread · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
We are talking about design and agency.

You called it the "God hypothesis". Design can be a hypothesis, but you're outwardly stating that it's something supernatural. Or is that not what your intent is? In which case you may want better terminology.

MaudDib said:
Again you show signs of having adopted Scientism as your preferred world view, science is the only way to truth.

You're projecting.

doubtingmerle · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Lol,

That’s a false dilemma if I ever saw your one. You must have been home ding under a rock,
There’s a 3rd hypothesis known as the God hypothesis.

The God hypothesis? What is that?

Some people here think God did it through the process of evolution. Is that what you mean? If not, what do you mean?

doubtingmerle · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Do you have evidence for that? That evolution can can change function?

Sure. The three little bones in the mammalian ear are clearly derived from bones in the reptile jaw, for instance.

doubtingmerle · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Again you show signs of having adopted Scientism as your preferred world view, science is the only way to truth.

It just so happens that science is the best way we have to learn about the nature of reality. Can you think of a better way?

MaudDib · Jun 10, 2018

pitabread said:
You called it the "God hypothesis". Design can be a hypothesis, but you're outwardly stating that it's something supernatural. Or is that not what your intent is? In which case you may want better terminology.

You're projecting.

God is an agent. Scientific mechanisms may be confined to science, but not agents. The ultimate explanation of design is God.

pitabread · Jun 10, 2018

MaudDib said:
Scientific mechanisms may be confined to science, but not agents. The ultimate explanation of design is God.

Such is a belief, but not a testable hypothesis.

Unless you'd be willing to answer this challenge: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

the self replicating watch argument

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency