the self replicating watch argument

[Ophiolite]

Nevertheless it is true that the presence of design is the best explanation for the appearance of design in a highly functionally coherent system where the probability of accidental invention is extremely low.
The world that assumes that this is not true is teaching kids some very dumb thinking and the wonders why academia is taking a dive in the west.
Everytime we say that cars "evolve", or the like, we are displaying utter contempt for the intelligent men behind the careful development of design, pandering to fools who hate the designer so much that they can't even bring themselves to acknowledge the designer when he is standing in front of them.

I see your difficulty. (And, quite incidentally, I feel for you.)

1. The best explanation for the appearance of design in biochemistry and in organisms is a combination of:
a) The propensity of humans to see patterns, even when none exist.
b) Residual superstitious thought in minority segments of religious groups that require an active designer.
c) The ability of humans to mimic the natural patterns of evolution via artificial design.

2. Simplistic probability calculations that take no account of the following display a profound ignorance of the subject:
a) Chemical reactions contain powerful non-random drivers.
b) Multiple solutions to the same "problem" exist.

3. The greatest "dive of academia" appears to be taking place in that part of the West where fundamentalism is most active.

4. Any good dictionary will show that many words have multiple meanings, often quite distinct. Scientific terms often have meanings more precise and even different from dictionary definitions. Failure to acknowledge this can lead people to misunderstand/misinterpret how "evolve" is used in different settings. Perhaps proper reflection on this point will help you evolve your thinking on the subject.

5. If there is a Grand Designer her brilliance lies in the creation of a set of constants, basic forces and fundamental particles that evolved naturally to produce the majesty of the universe we see today, rather than an "in-your-face" ongoing interference in her creation, like some nagging spouse.

 

[xianghua]

You said,

"...if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math."

So here's the math; a brief summary of the mathematics on which evolution is based.

no. i asked how many mutations required to evolve the first eye. if evolution fit with match it should be realy easy to show such a thing.

 

[Speedwell]

no. i asked how many mutations required to evolve the first eye. if evolution fit with match it should be realy easy to show such a thing.

As has been pointed to you ony many occasions, "how many mutations?" is a stupid question. Evolution runs on phenotypic variation followed by natural selection. Mutations contribute to variation, but are not the sole cause of it. So the number of mutations involved in any particular evolutionary development depends on the exact developmental pathway taken which is in most cases unknowable.

As an example, you could ask me "How many tanks of gas will it take me to drive from point A to point B?" And I answer, "What route are you taking? The shorter route or the longer route?" Then you demand again, "Never mind the route. How many tanks of gas will it take?" Do you see how silly that sounds?



No "gotcha" for you on this one, I'm afraid. Too bad.

 

[xianghua]

As has been pointed to you ony many occasions, "how many mutations?" is a stupid question. Evolution runs on phenotypic variation followed by natural selection. Mutations contribute to variation, but are not the sole cause of it. So the number of mutations involved in any particular evolutionary development depends on the exact developmental pathway taken which is in most cases unknowable.

As an example, you could ask me "How many tanks of gas will it take me to drive from point A to point B?" And I answer, "What route are you taking? The shorter route or the longer route?" Then you demand again, "Never mind the route. How many tanks of gas will it take?" Do you see how silly that sounds?



No "gotcha" for you on this one, I'm afraid. Too bad.

but in science we go by the evidence. we have no evidence that a complex biological system can evolve stepwise. so why to believe otherwise from the evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Pretty long game of pigeon chess here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

again: do you have any evidence for this simple cell? yes or no?

You're misunderstanding the process - the proposition of a simple cell is an hypothesis to be tested; it's reasonable to make such a hypothesis if it is consistent with existing evidence and there is no significant evidence against it.

The existing evidence shows increasing complexity over time, so it's a reasonable inference to suggest that the earliest life may have been the simplest. Since we have no direct evidence of the earliest life, we have no significant evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even with DNA his whole argument relies on the premise that complexity is a indicator for design which it isn't.

That depends on your definition of design. I prefer to say that designs come about in two ways, goal-directed, and undirected. The former involves planning, and so intelligence; the latter typically involves trial and error with natural filtering or selection.

In the case of the snowflake, (crudely) the trial and error is in the random movements of water molecules, and the filtering or selection is in the availability of binding sites for them. Most undirected design examples are very simple - too simple to be generally thought of as designs, but the principle is the same; for example, the fractionation of rocks, gravel, and sand, into graded layers or beds, as noted by Nicholas Steno in the 17th century.

I prefer to think of evolution as a design process, as per Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

realy? so how many mutations required to evolve the first olfactory system for instance? if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math.

No; knowing or understanding the rules underlying a system's operation or behaviour doesn't mean it is easy to evaluate or describe specific states of that system - consider chess, for example; a complete understanding of the rules doesn't necessarily mean you can evaluate a specific position or calculate the number of moves to reach that position.

Your particular example is poorly-defined - olfactory systems vary from simple cellular chemical tropisms to the advanced systems of vertebrates.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

2. Simplistic probability calculations that take no account of the following display a profound ignorance of the subject:
a) Chemical reactions contain powerful non-random drivers.
b) Multiple solutions to the same "problem" exist.

Also, don't forget the power of cumulative selection, as described by Dawkins' Weasel.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but in science we go by the evidence. we have no evidence that a complex biological system can evolve stepwise. so why to believe otherwise from the evidence?

We do have evidence of it, such as a population of E. coli developing the ability to digest citrate. Citrate digestion is a complex process, requiring multiple genes to perform and thus making it highly unlikely for a single gene mutation to be responsible. Since this evolution experiment went on for decades and samples of every generation were kept frozen to keep their genes from mutating further, the scientists were able to trace the exact generation at which enough mutations had occurred such that they were just 1 away from being able to digest citrate, and were able to repeat the development of that trait.

Thus, this makes not only for strong evidence that a complex biological system can evolve stepwise, but it's an example that can be replicated. E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

no. i asked how many mutations required to evolve the first eye. if evolution fit with match it should be realy easy to show such a thing.

Here you go - A Pessimistic Estimate for the Evolution of an Eye.

Given some rather pessimistic assumptions (detailed in the paper), they calculate 362,993 generations, where the morphological (structural) change per generation is 0.005% (given a heritability of 0.5, a low selection intensity of 0.01, and a low coefficient of variation of 0.01).

Given a pessimistic generation length of 1 year, by this model it would take less than 364,000 years to evolve a camera eye from an eye-patch (e.g. an eye spot) - not even assuming parallel development of features.

As has been mentioned, the number of mutations per se is not readily calculable for such complex biological systems due to the number of possible paths, the influence of population size, mutation rates, variability, heritability, selection pressure, etc.

 

[Speedwell]

That depends on your definition of design. I prefer to say that designs come about in two ways, goal-directed, and undirected. The former involves planning, and so intelligence; the latter typically involves trial and error with natural filtering or selection.

In the case of the snowflake, (crudely) the trial and error is in the random movements of water molecules, and the filtering or selection is in the availability of binding sites for them. Most undirected design examples are very simple - too simple to be generally thought of as designs, but the principle is the same; for example, the fractionation of rocks, gravel, and sand, into graded layers or beds, as noted by Nicholas Steno in the 17th century.

I prefer to think of evolution as a design process, as per Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker'.

Just so. Design can mean, as you point out, the functional arrangement of component parts. The word is frequently used in that sense, as in "Show me the design of our new car." The word design can also be used to express human intent or purpose: "That car was designed to go fast." In casual speech speech the two meanings are carelessly allowed to conflate, but really they are quite distinct. When bandying metaphysics with IDists the distinction must be rigorously enforced.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just so. Design can mean, as you point out, the functional arrangement of component parts.

Not necessarily even functional arrangement; just ordered or patterned in some way.

Conflation or equivocation of meanings seems to be very common in these discussions, sometimes more deliberately than others...

 

[pitabread]

Given a pessimistic generation length of 1 year, by this model it would take less than 364,000 years to evolve a camera eye from an eye-patch (e.g. an eye spot) - not even assuming parallel development of features.

Of course having been presented this previously, xianghua's predictable response is that you need to have an eye patch first. And then even when being shown how basic optical receptors can evolve, he'll argue that you need the precursor for that. And so on and so on, in an infinite regress until he simply declares that evolution has no evidence.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

 

[Kylie]

its funny because i do speak abut evolution and not abiogenesis. according to evolution many new organs and systems evolved after the first cell: hearing system, a vision system, a motion system and so on. so if every one of those suppose new systems need about 3-4 parts for their minimal function- its not evolution anymore.

Then you obviously have no idea what evolution actually is. Evolution doesn't create new parts from nothing. it takes what is there and modifies them.

Now I suspect you are just stalling in order to avoid discussing what the video actually talks about...

 

[Kylie]

no. i asked how many mutations required to evolve the first eye. if evolution fit with match it should be realy easy to show such a thing.

That's like asking how many steps it took for your great great grandfather to walk to his friend's house.

 

[Kylie]

BTW, while we're talking about the evolution of the eye, even our skin can function as a very basic eye. We can detect when sunlight falls on our skin, even if we can't see the skin that is in the light. Animals that have primitive eyes do basically this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course having been presented this previously, xianghua's predictable response is that you need to have an eye patch first. And then even when being shown how basic optical receptors can evolve, he'll argue that you need the precursor for that. And so on and so on, in an infinite regress until he simply declares that evolution has no evidence.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

Yes; I suppose at some point I'll get fed up of answering the same questions over and over. But who knows, maybe someone will find it interesting this time

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes; I suppose at some point I'll get fed up of answering the same questions over and over. But who knows, maybe someone will find it interesting this time

Remember that the more important audience for these points is not, generally, the person you are replying to, but the lurker who reads both arguments. One hopes - and I have this confirmed by conversations on other forums - that some, with open minds, are thereby made familiar with the power of the scientific method and the overwhelming support for evolutionary theory.

 

[xianghua]

Your particular example is poorly-defined - olfactory systems vary from simple cellular chemical tropisms to the advanced systems of vertebrates.

not according to wiki definition:

Olfaction - Wikipedia

"olfactory is a chemoreception that forms the sense of smell"