the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

if its was the result of design rather then a natural process the chance is actually very high.

And if the two proteins you keep mentioning are also "the result of design" why would they not have an even higher probability? I am trying to see why you say the chance of two proteins coming into existence is improbable, even if "the result of design", but the chances of thousands coming into existence simultaneously is highly probable. That makes no sense to me.

I think you will agree with me that after months of arguing this, you have not presented one single argument that the chance of thousands of zebra proteins coming into existence at one time as the result of design is more probable than two proteins coming into existence as the result of design. Not one. If you have a single argument for your point, why have you not stated that argument in the last year?

If your only argument is that we need to add the words "as the result of design" when talking about animals coming into existence, we can discuss if we need to add those words. But first, before we get into that, can we agree that there is no reason to think that a zebra popping into existence out of thin air is more probable than thinking that two additional proteins came into existence in a particular animal "as the result of design"?

probably yes. why not?

Great!

So after all this debate, it turns out that you think a great deal of evolution actually happened. You now say all lions, tigers, panthers, cougars, house cats, and all other members of the felidae family all probably evolved from a single ancestor population. That is quite a lot of evolution. And you also appear to think it probable that all eohippus, merychippus, horses, donkeys and zebras, all evolved from a common ancestor. So we are talking a lot of evolution here.

Long ago creationists argued that every species was created separately. Then folks like AV said it was every genus that was created, and the individual species evolved. Now we are hearing that God created the first of each family, and the genera and species evolved from there. If I was an auctioneer, I would say, "I got family. Do I hear order?"

 

[doubtingmerle]

i will respond to your third question since its more clear case then the horse one. the first monkey appeared about 30 my ago and the first human about 3 my ago (homo genus). so if we assume that the age is true then human appeared after monkeys. i see no problem with this situation.

And are you agreeing with us that Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens all evolved from a common ancestor?

 

[xianghua]

And if the two proteins you keep mentioning are also "the result of design" why would they not have an even higher probability? I am trying to see why you say the chance of two proteins coming into existence is improbable, even if "the result of design", but the chances of thousands coming into existence simultaneously is highly probable. That makes no sense to me.

I think you will agree with me that after months of arguing this, you have not presented one single argument that the chance of thousands of zebra proteins coming into existence at one time as the result of design is more probable than two proteins coming into existence as the result of design. Not one. If you have a single argument for your point, why have you not stated that argument in the last year?

If your only argument is that we need to add the words "as the result of design" when talking about animals coming into existence, we can discuss if we need to add those words. But first, before we get into that, can we agree that there is no reason to think that a zebra popping into existence out of thin air is more probable than thinking that two additional proteins came into existence in a particular animal "as the result of design"?

its very simple. the chance of getting many genes at once by design is much higher then getting it by a natural process. so it can be 10 or even 1000 genes at once. its not so different when we talking about designer. again: its like asking what is the chance to get a car by design vs the chance to geting it by a natural process. the answer is clear.

Great!

So after all this debate, it turns out that you think a great deal of evolution actually happened. You now say all lions, tigers, panthers, cougars, house cats, and all other members of the felidae family all probably evolved from a single ancestor population. That is quite a lot of evolution. And you also appear to think it probable that all eohippus, merychippus, horses, donkeys and zebras, all evolved from a common ancestor. So we are talking a lot of evolution here.

Long ago creationists argued that every species was created separately. Then folks like AV said it was every genus that was created, and the individual species evolved. Now we are hearing that God created the first of each family, and the genera and species evolved from there. If I was an auctioneer, I would say, "I got family. Do I hear order?"

actually its not evolution at all. i will call it variation among exist kind. very similar to variations we find among humans. we will both agree that cat is very similar to a lion but very different from a dolphin.

And are you agreeing with us that Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens all evolved from a common ancestor?

probably yes. but again: no evolution here since its basically the same creature.

 

[Speedwell]

actually its not evolution at all. i will call it variation among exist kind. very similar to variations we find among humans. we will both agree that cat is very similar to a lion but very different from a dolphin.

Not so very different; they are both placental mammals.

What is a "kind' anyway?

 

[xianghua]

Not so very different; they are both placental mammals.

What is a "kind' anyway?

kind is variation of the same basic creature.

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[Speedwell]

kind is variation of the same basic creature.

Are these "kinds" you are talking about the creationist "kinds" which they erroneoulsy attribute to the Bible?

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually its not evolution at all. i will call it variation among exist kind.

Call it whatever you want. When a common ancestor "variates" into 44 species ranging from domestic cat to lion and tiger, I call it evolution.

If a domestic cat and lion share a common ancestor, is it possible a bear and lion share a common ancestor?

probably yes. but again: no evolution here since its basically the same creature.

Speak for yourself. I am not basically the same thing as homo habilis. We have undergone a lot of evolution since habilis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

its very simple. the chance of getting many genes at once by design is much higher then getting it by a natural process. so it can be 10 or even 1000 genes at once. its not so different when we talking about designer. again: its like asking what is the chance to get a car by design vs the chance to geting it by a natural process. the answer is clear.

You ignored my question.

Again how do you know thousands of proteins forming at once by design is more likely than two proteins forming at once by design? You are stacking the deck. You include the words "by design" only when you want to.

Again, do you have one piece of evidence that zebras popping into existence by design is more likely than 2 proteins evolving by design?

 

[Meowzltov]

but we know about many other "out of place fossils"

You keep saying this as if I haven't replied to it. There is nothing out of place about the tree fossils. Evolution has NO GOAL. This line of reasoning proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Meowzltov]

again: i said that in this case they are able to reproduce like a creature for the sake of the argument. so what you will say in such a case: they evolved from each other or they were designed?

Until they begin self replicating, they are not evolving. So please stop flooding the evolution thread with pictures of inanimate objects.

Just as life is created and then evolves, it is possible that the AI we create today may someday replicate itself and evolve.

 

[Kylie]

let me ask you this: lets say that we focus only in a single new trait. say the first heart. what make you think that the sequence for forming heart is near other functional sequence in the sequence space? the sequence space for a single gene is huge (4^1000 possible combinations). so what make you think that every functional sequence is near other functional sequence?

Stop changing the subject.

Tell me what evidence you have that backs up your claim that the chances of traits evolving simultaneously are very low.

Tell me what evidence you have that backs up your claim that a functional new trait needs about billion mutation on average and the chance to get 2 such traits at once is about 10^18.

And also, if you actually understood evolution, you would know that a trait doesn't pop up out of nothing. It takes many generations. If a short hair species evolves a long coat, it doesn't mean that a hairless parent gives birth to an offspring that has a long coat. It means that a short hair parent gives birth to an offspring that has a little tiny bit more hair than average.

 

[Kylie]

thanks. i dont think so. so we disagree about the self replicating cars example. you said that you will not conclude design and i do. fine.

You don't think they would evolve? Why not? What more does evolution need than reproduction with small changes?

 

[xianghua]

Call it whatever you want. When a common ancestor "variates" into 44 species ranging from domestic cat to lion and tiger, I call it evolution.

so a cat staying as cat is evidence for evolution? ok.

If a domestic cat and lion share a common ancestor, is it possible a bear and lion share a common ancestor?

i dont think so since they are quite different compare to cats. anyone can tell that a bear is different from a cat.

Speak for yourself. I am not basically the same thing as homo habilis. We have undergone a lot of evolution since habilis.

are you imply that some people today cant be consider as human because they are a bit different? of course not.

Again how do you know thousands of proteins forming at once by design is more likely than two proteins forming at once by design?

where i said that?

 

[xianghua]

Until they begin self replicating, they are not evolving. So please stop flooding the evolution thread with pictures of inanimate objects.

Just as life is created and then evolves, it is possible that the AI we create today may someday replicate itself and evolve.

so you want to talk about animals? fine. we can arrange cats from the small one to the big one in hierarchy. but it doesnt prove that they evolved from each other in this order. right? so hierarchy prove nothing even according to evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Tell me what evidence you have that backs up your claim that a functional new trait needs about billion mutation on average and the chance to get 2 such traits at once is about 10^18.

i consider simple and very generous assumptions:

1) i assume that the chance to get a functional new trait is about one in about 100 births.
2) multiply by the chance that it will be in the same spot as the other new part (if we are talking about 2 match parts). because they most need to "meet" each other to form the new system who suppose to evolve. combine it with this paper:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

"this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences"

so one in a billion is a ctually very generous estimation.

And also, if you actually understood evolution, you would know that a trait doesn't pop up out of nothing. It takes many generations. If a short hair species evolves a long coat, it doesn't mean that a hairless parent gives birth to an offspring that has a long coat. It means that a short hair parent gives birth to an offspring that has a little tiny bit more hair than average.

sure. i talking about something new. a heart from non heart or a motion system from non motion system or hearing system from non hearing system etc.

What more does evolution need than reproduction with small changes

we need for instance that a functional sequence will exist at the first place in the DNA to be found later by mutations. the fact that we have DNA doesnt necessarily means that it should has functional sequence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but i said it has in this case for the sake of the argument. so what you will conclude in such a case: design or a natural process?

In that case, I'll reply in kind.

For the sake of argument, I'll say that it would be evident that it was a natural process.

Now what?

Only you get to make stuff up?

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually its not evolution at all. i will call it variation among exist kind. very similar to variations we find among humans. we will both agree that cat is very similar to a lion but very different from a dolphin.

Should I point out that house cats are less closely related to siberian tigers then humans are related to chimps?

Or would it spoil the fun?

probably yes. but again: no evolution here since its basically the same creature.

lol.........

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a cat staying as cat is evidence for evolution? ok.

Yes. In the sense that if cats would speciation into non-cats, then evolution theory would be disproven.

Cats will only produce more cats or sub-species of cats (which are still cats).

i dont think so since they are quite different compare to cats. anyone can tell that a bear is different from a cat.

But someone might confuse a housecat with a siberian tiger or a lion????

are you imply that some people today cant be consider as human because they are a bit different? of course not.

There isn't a single homo habilis alive today.
All "homo's" alive today are homo sapiens.

 

[jedi__knight]

Wait, you are not going to tell us about pregnant cars and robot penguins? You are not going to tell us about stars revolving around a stationary earth? We are going to switch this thread away from fiction and talk about reality?

That's refreshing.

I found the link to James Tours interesting. He specifically states that he does not support intelligent design. His arguments center around the challenges of the origin of life and other stages of evolution. He is careful not to insert an intelligent agent when he sees a gap. He just emphasizes the gaps. On a professional level he seems to go along with evolution, but on a religious level seems to go with a literal genesis. And he seems to be conflicted between the two. He seems to be a mainstream scientist Monday through Friday and a creationist on Sunday. Or at least that is my take on what he says here: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/.

He is not a member of the Discovery institute and does not promote intelligent design as a scientific discipline. He personally believes in the intelligent creation of life and the intelligent creation of kinds of living beings. That's a big difference. Not only does he believe in intelligent creation but believes in the biblical version of creation. When it comes to the age of the universe, he accepts the interpretation given by Dr Gerald Schroeder, a physicist from MIT.
The Age of the Universe | Gerald Schroeder
He considers spontaneous abiogenesis as nonsense and gave his reasons in the video for which I gave the link. He is one of the world's leading experts in the relevant field, so his opinion, although not absolute proof, has a special significance.
He as a scientist is not ideologically against Darwin's theory, but does not accept speculation as proven facts. In order to accept something as a proven fact, he seeks exact explanations that he has not yet received from any evolutionist. He only got a bunch of speculative papers. He has nothing against the idea of evolution but has against lying that evolution has been proven fact despite all the controversies that are unexplained. This is also a big difference. He advocates freedom of thought and public criticism of Darwin's theory because he is a witness that people have career problems when deciding on such a move.