the self replicating watch argument

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Entire chromosomes can end up duplicated due to mutations, so your point is moot. Even if it were demonstrably true that genomes can be more easily generated via design than natural processes, that doesn't eliminate natural processes as a potential source for genome generation, or even make it less likely.

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.

-_- I'd say all mammals are very similar to each other.

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

-_- Homo erectus is not "basically the same" as our species. Heck, it's entirely possible that our species would be unable to breed with them, meaning that they'd have to be "different kinds" according to you, since you say that organisms which can interbreed are the same kind. So, are you going to remain consistent with how you personally define "kind" or not?

 

[Meowzltov]

we can arrange cats from the small one to the big one in hierarchy

Why? What would that have to do with heirarchy? Remember that evolution simply favors the cat that survives in its given habitat. It is not partial to any particular size, small or large.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

A cat similar to a domestic cat evolving into a lion is evidence for evolution, yes.

You wouldn't be surprised if your cat's great grandchildren were lions?

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

Anyone can tell me that my pet cat is different from a lion also. And yet you think those two have a common ancestor.

If "variation" can make that much change, I would think a bear could have the same ancestor as a lion.

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

Of course I am not implying that some people alive today are less human. I am explaining to you that homo habilis was not fully human.

where i said that?

let's not play games. Answer clearly. Do you or do you not think that a zebra popping up out of thin air by a designer is more likely than two proteins forming together by a designer?

 

[Phred]

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.

Yes, the answer is clear. Life evolved. You'd best get used to it. You see, you depend upon the existence of a designer. As of the posting of this there has been no designer discovered. There has been no design discovered. No matter how much you flail about and wave your arms and go back to the original idea you still don't have a designer. Yes, I know, God. That's your belief. I don't deal in belief. I deal in what can be proven. In court it has been PROVEN that evolution is a viable scientific theory supported by evidence and Intelligent Design is not. That's without getting into the viability of a deity. You claim that design is a better chance? But you rely upon MAGIC to do the design and there is no magic. None. Zip, zero, nada. What we have is a natural process and the time to get it done. So regardless of your protests and your willful ignorance, life evolved.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

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.

Except it doesn't have to be like that, does it? It doesn't have to be a new trait. it can be a neutral variation which is not selected for or against, but introduces a change which can act with a different variation to produce a new outcome.

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.

Yeah, that's not exactly one thing though, is it? You are demanding completely unrealistic things of evolution.

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. In any case, the two things I mentioned are all that evolution requires.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont know because its possible that they are from the same family, and if this is true then its only variation of the same creature.

Ah we are back to horse evolution, and you seem to agree that the merychippus, zebra and horse all evolved from eohippus or a close cousin of eohippus. Great! This conclusion seems obvious. After all, 50 million years ago there were eohippus all around with none of the more modern species. But with time, species appeared that were more and more like horses and zebras. And you appear now to have reached the obvious conclusion that horses were evolving (ahem, variationing).

If all members of the horse family came from a common ancestor, is it possible all therapsids came from the same ancestor?

 

[xianghua]

Why? What would that have to do with heirarchy? Remember that evolution simply favors the cat that survives in its given habitat. It is not partial to any particular size, small or large.

so? you gave the whale case as evidence for evolution because the hierarchy in their fossils. so i point out that we can arrange also cat fossils from the small to the big one. its of course doesnt prove they evolved from each other in such hierarchy. so the same is true for the whale fossils.

 

[xianghua]

A cat similar to a domestic cat evolving into a lion is evidence for evolution, yes.

You wouldn't be surprised if your cat's great grandchildren were lions?

no. its the same as great dane and chihuahua. and its clear to everyone that both are still dogs.

Anyone can tell me that my pet cat is different from a lion also. And yet you think those two have a common ancestor.

sure. but anyone call see that both are still cats were a bear isnt. i never seen somone who seen a bear and call it a cat. even their texonomic position isnt the same.

If "variation" can make that much change, I would think a bear could have the same ancestor as a lion.

first: its only a belief. secondly: its still a cat vs a cat and a cat vs a bear. so again its not the same.

Of course I am not implying that some people alive today are less human. I am explaining to you that homo habilis was not fully human.

what is the different actually? if you accept that small variation make it less human (homo erectus for instance) then you can say the same for variation exist today among humans.

let's not play games. Answer clearly. Do you or do you not think that a zebra popping up out of thin air by a designer is more likely than two proteins forming together by a designer?

i think its basically the same chance. since a designer can add how many proteins he want. something nature cant do.

 

[xianghua]

You claim that design is a better chance? But you rely upon MAGIC to do the design and there is no magic.

so when someone create a watch he use magic?

None. Zip, zero, nada. What we have is a natural process and the time to get it done. So regardless of your protests and your willful ignorance, life evolved.

you are welcome to believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so? you gave the whale case as evidence for evolution because the hierarchy in their fossils. so i point out that we can arrange also cat fossils from the small to the big one.

Whale evolution fossils aren't placed in a hierarchy based on size. They are place in hierarchies based on traits, comparative anatomy etc.

its of course doesnt prove they evolved from each other in such hierarchy. so the same is true for the whale fossils.

Perhaps in your overly simplistic world of make-belief and strawmen.

 

[xianghua]

Except it doesn't have to be like that, does it? It doesn't have to be a new trait. it can be a neutral variation which is not selected for or against, but introduces a change which can act with a different variation to produce a new outcome.

ley me to do that simple. do you agree that a vision system is different from a motion system that is different from hearing system? its like the diffeirence between a cell-phone and a digital watch. a cell-phone has several parts that a watch doesnt and vice versa. right? so what make you think that any such different systems are near each other?

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. its the same as great dane and chihuahua. and its clear to everyone that both are still dogs.

What else did you expect? Or perhaps better: what else do you think was expected in context of evolution?

sure. but anyone call see that both are still cats were a bear isnt. i never seen somone who seen a bear and call it a cat. even their texonomic position isnt the same.

Bears and cats are both mammals though. And vertebrates. And Eukaryotes.

first: its only a belief

It isn't, actually.
Beliefs is what you (desperatly) try to hold on to.
Lions and bears sharing a mammal ancestor? That's what we call "knowledge".

. secondly: its still a cat vs a cat and a cat vs a bear.

All mammals.

so again its not the same.

Cats aren't bears, true.
But cats and bears are both mammals.
So are whales, humans, chimps, dogs, wolves, panda's, squirels, dolphins, ...

 

[xianghua]

Whale evolution fossils aren't placed in a hierarchy based on size. They are place in hierarchies based on traits, comparative anatomy etc.

true. in this case i used only a single trait (size but we can also use a tail length) but the fact that we can arrange animals in hierarchy (even by a single trait) doesnt prove they evolved from each other.

 

[DogmaHunter]

true. in this case i used only a single trait (size but we can also use a tail length) but the fact that we can arrange animals in hierarchy (even by a single trait) doesnt prove they evolved from each other.

Especially not if you have no clue what the heck you are doing.

 

[xianghua]

Cats aren't bears, true.
But cats and bears are both mammals.

but they are different kinds of mammals. both are also animals. so what?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i think its basically the same chance. since a designer can add how many proteins he want. something nature cant do.

BINGO!

All this time you have been arguing that the chance of certain protein creation simultaneously as part of evolution is impossibly remote, but a zebra instantly popping into existence out of thin air is likely. Now you conclude both are equally likely. Very interesting. Evolution micro-managed by God is just as likely as creation ex nihlo in your enlightened view. Cool!

You are on the right track. Think about it some more. I think you will conclude that micro-managed evolution actually makes much more sense than the kaboom method of creation

And then think about it some more, and maybe your God did not need to micro-manage evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but they are diffierent kinds of mammals. both are also animals. so what?

And a lion and house cat are different kinds of cats. I write this while petting my lion, whoops, I mean domestic cat.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so when someone create a watch he use magic?

If that watch gets pregnant, yes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no. its the same as great dane and chihuahua. and its clear to everyone that both are still dogs.

Dogs are all the same species.

The domestic cat and lion are not even in the same genus. And yet you allow they can come from a common ancestor.

Come on, give yourself credit for what you said about cats. When you acknowledged that cougars and lions descended from the same ancestor, it was one of the smartest things you said since you have been here.

Congratulations.

i never seen somone who seen a bear and call it a cat. even their texonomic position isnt the same.

I never saw anyone walk up to a lion saying, "here kitty, kitty...oh, my bad."

what is the different actually? if you accept that small variation make it less human (homo erectus for instance) then you can say the same for variation exist today among humans.

there are no homo erectus alive today.

I have never met a person who is not worth the dignity and respect of being treated as a human being. I choose to treat all Homo Sapiens as worthy of the full respect of a fellow homo sapiens.

 

[xianghua]

BINGO!

All this time you have been arguing that the chance of certain protein creation simultaneously as part of evolution is impossibly remote, but a zebra instantly popping into existence out of thin air is likely. Now you conclude both are equally likely.

by a designer and not by a natural process. do you see the difference?

The domestic cat and lion are not even in the same genus.

and they are still cats. right?