the self replicating watch argument

[Kylie]

sequence space is the number of possible genetic combinations. a single nucleotide has about 4 possible combinations. so for 2 nt there are about 4^2 and for 3 there are about 4^3 and for 1000 there are about 4^1000 possible combinations. according to evolution a gene suppose to evolve into another gene. so we need to believe that there are so many functional combinations that we can move from one to another one in about few million years. the problem is that this space is so huge that even if the number of functional sequences is about more then the number of sand grains in the entire universe is still be very small compare to the whole sequence space. so what make you believe that there are indeed so many functional sequences?

Now, tell me, in your own words, what it means for two genes to be close together in the sequence space, and explain why it is important.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Xianghua, you have not shown anything that shows me unguided evolution could not have happened. But suppose you had convinced me of that. Even if you had shown that unguided evolution could not have happened, that would not prove that instantaneous creation could have happened.

I have asked you over and over for one bit of evidence that shows that the method God used is that of popping things into existence many times over millions of years as opposed to evolution. You refuse to attempt to show evidence for that.

Claiming that unguided evolution could not have happened does not prove instantaneous creation is more likely than theistic evolution.


Where is your evidence?

incorrect. in this case its less likely because we dont have any evidence for stepwise creation. see the difference?

Huh? What evidence do you have that stepwise evolution is less likely than instantaneous creation?

not realy. as you can see in this image from wikimedia we can arrange some of them even by the date and get the same hierarchy (i deleted the rest of them). so i can say that they evolved from each other:

View attachment 219673

Arranging some by the date means nothing. You are simply ignoring the evidence you don't want. If you look at all the evidence, it does not show what you claim. That proves nothing.

Again, I was referring to taking all of the Cambrian fossils, and next to that putting all the ordivician fossils, and so on up the geologic column. And when you do that it looks like evolution.

have you heard about the rare pumapard? its an hybrid of two subfamilies:

Pumapard - Wikipedia

the fact that we never seen such a thing doesnt prove that its impossible.

Understood that different members of the cat family can make hybrids. That does not prove house cats can breed with lions.

You said you know lions are related to house cats and not with bears because of interbreeding. You know no such thing.

 

[Meowzltov]

and what is the connection to the fossils we discussed about?

The whale fossils I offered were progressive, meaning they were active, moving from one state to another. The examples you gave were all comparative.

so far you gave the fossils and i showed why fossils cant prove evolution.

What specifically is your objection to the cat fossil record?

evolution require many small steps at the fossil level. for instance: the oldest myriapod already contain many legs similar to a modern one:

And? So?

Again, evolution has no agenda. Legs can be added or lost depending on what is most adaptive. In fact, it can go back and forth, one age having fewer legs, and then a later age having more legs, and a still later age having fewer legs again. It depends on what is needed to adapt to the niche.

 

[xianghua]

Now, tell me, in your own words, what it means for two genes to be close together in the sequence space, and explain why it is important.

it means that we dont need many mutations to move from one functional gene to another. its important because in such case the chance is much higher and evolution can evolve a new structure\function easily. but we know that many structures are very different from each other so those sequences are separated well in the sequence space. means that you will need many mutations to move from one gene to another if they are very different. now, we may able to move from one gene to a similar one. but the fact that many sequence arent similar is evidence that those specific sequences cant evolve from each other.

 

[xianghua]

What evidence do you have that stepwise evolution is less likely than instantaneous creation?

i will give you several:

1) the fact that according to our knowlage there isnt a stepwise way to evolve a complex biological system.
2) the fact that many missing links are still missing (see my myriapod example).
3) the fact that we dont have any proof that one creature can evolve into another different creature.
4) the fact that we found many out of place fossils:

https://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949

5) the fact that we find many cases of non-hierarchy in nature.

Arranging some by the date means nothing. You are simply ignoring the evidence you don't want. If you look at all the evidence, it does not show what you claim. That proves nothing.

that prove that the claim about hierarchy as evidence for evolution is false. since we can find such hierarchy without a common descent.

Again, I was referring to taking all of the Cambrian fossils, and next to that putting all the ordivician fossils, and so on up the geologic column. And when you do that it looks like evolution.

first: you never mantion that you talk about all fossils. second: where is your evidence that all those fossis show this hierarchy?.

Understood that different members of the cat family can make hybrids. That does not prove house cats can breed with lions.

actually this example is about hybrid between 2 groups of cats: the small cats (like the domestic cat) and the big once (that include lion). so its basically the same.

 

[xianghua]

The whale fossils I offered were progressive, meaning they were active, moving from one state to another. The examples you gave were all comparative.

first: it doesnt matter since even in such a small change (size in this case) it doesnt prove evolution. so the same is true for a big change. second: i can give you an "active example" too. for instance: perch—> mudskipper—> salamander. its look like they evolved from each other. but again: it doesnt prove any evolution since even according to evolution they didnt evolved from each other. so the whale case doesnt prove evolution.

Again, evolution has no agenda. Legs can be added or lost depending on what is most adaptive. In fact, it can go back and forth, one age having fewer legs, and then a later age having more legs, and a still later age having fewer legs again. It depends on what is needed to adapt to the niche.

first: so human can evolve into a fish again? and into bacteria-like too?

second: i talked about the missing fossils. if an animal has about 30 pairs of legs it means that it evolved them stepwise. so we need to find all the fossils from 2 pairs of legs to 30 (or at least several of them). so where are them?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Xianghua, we differ, of course, on whether non-directed evolution occurred. I contend it happened, and that is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. I won't even try to convince you of that. Rather, I wander if you could make one small step, that of accepting micro-managed evolution directed by God. You claim to have no opinion of how God created, only that God was involved. So why wouldn't God do it by evolution, as opposed to creation by smashing watermelons, or by transformers, or by popping into existence out of nowhere? It turns out when I ask you which you select, you seem to be opposed to all those opinions except for popping up out of nowhere. So why not just say that this is your belief? Why hide? You apparently believe that there were many thousands of creation events of animals, each consisting of many animals suddenly popping into existence out of nothing, a view known as progressive creationism. OK, now that we finally got you out of your hiding place to actually say what you believe, the question comes up as to why you pick that method as opposed to something slightly closer to mainline science, such as evolution that was micro-managed by God. So I asked you, "What evidence do you have that stepwise evolution is less likely than instantaneous creation?, to which you replied:

i will give you several:
1) the fact that according to our knowlage there isnt a stepwise way to evolve a complex biological system.

So you are saying evolution is so difficult that God himself could not micro-manage it? One would think a God that could pop animals into existence out of nothing could micro-manage evolution. You have furnished no proof he could not.

And why is it that you demand proof of evolution, but ask for no evidence of your own?

2) the fact that many missing links are still missing (see my myriapod example).

This has been explained to you many times. The fossil record is very limited. Many species will probably never be found.

But what we have found points strongly to evolution.

If not finding a species yet proves it did not exist, does me not meeting every person in the world yet prove that most of the people in the world don't exist?

3) the fact that we dont have any proof that one creature can evolve into another different creature.

Wait, this is your reason for believing that God used popping into existence instead of micro-managed evolution!

LOL!

First, science is not about proof. It is about evidence.
Second, you do not have proof for instantaneous creation. Isn't this a case of special pleading, when you demand proof of evolution, but not of your view?

How would your view compare with evolution if you had the same standard of evidence for both?

And besides, if disproving A, proves B, would it also prove C, D, E, F and any other crazy idea out there? If your argument proves instantaneous creation, does it also prove zebras came from exploding watermelons?

4) the fact that we found many out of place fossils:

https://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949

Oh dear, you turn to a book of total tabloid trash? See, for instance, Forbidden Archeology - Bad Archaeology.

What next? Are you going to start quoting supermarket tabloids next?

5) the fact that we find many cases of non-hierarchy in nature.

Your writings indicate to me that you don't even know what hierarchy means as used by biologists. Please read, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 . Nested heirarchy is a strong evidence for evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

first: you never mantion that you talk about all fossils. second: where is your evidence that all those fossis show this hierarchy?.

Once again, this is what I had asked, " Why is it when we line up the fossils that we find in the Cambrian next to those found in the Ordivician followed by those found in the Siluran, etc., it looks like evolution?"

And yes, I was referring to all the fossils in the Cambrian, followed by all the fossils in the Ordivician, etc. In practical terms you can't do that, but you can do it with representatives of the various periods. I was not talking about data mining in which I select a few fossils at random from each period. You responded with an illustration in which you deliberately blocked out the data you didn't want, and ignored that the animals you posted were not actually found in that order. That is not science. Science is not about randomly selecting the data that proves your point if arranged in a contrived order. It is about using all of the available data.

Why is it that we find no fish until many millions of years after single celled creatures?
Why is it that we find no mammal-like reptiles until many millions of years after fish?
Why is it that we find no mammals until many millions of years after mammal-like reptiles?
Why is it that we find no primates until many millions of years after the first mammals?
Why is it that we find no humans until millions of years after the first primates?

All of this is consistent with evolution. Why did your God pop all these things into existence in this order?

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually this example is about hybrid between 2 groups of cats: the small cats (like the domestic cat) and the big once (that include lion). so its basically the same.

No sir, the fact that a small member of the Felidae family can mate with a larger member does not prove that domestic cats can breed with tigers.

 

[doubtingmerle]

where is your evidence that all those fossis show this hierarchy?.

You are seriously asking me about the evidence that the fossils show the progression from single cells to multi-cells to fish to early tetrapods to mammal like reptiles to early mammals to primates to humans? This has been known since before Darwin. Early creationists discovered the geologic column and named many of the layers before Darwin. When you try to cast doubt on this, you are about 200 years behind modern science.

See for instance, the story of Adam Sedgwick-- Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) .
To answer your question of where such fossils are found, North Dakota, for instance. The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[xianghua]

i want to focus so i will pick up 2 of my main points:

Wait, this is your reason for believing that God used popping into existence instead of micro-managed evolution!

First, science is not about proof. It is about evidence.

true. and in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. so what we do have? we have billions of creatures today that basically stay the same creatures as far as we can see. so i go by the evidence (cat staying as cat) and you go against the evidence (cat can be change into a different creature).

Your writings indicate to me that you don't even know what hierarchy means as used by biologists. Please read, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 . Nested heirarchy is a strong evidence for evolution.

realy? from your own source:

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies"

so what about this example?:

they continue:

"It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings"

and this is indeed what we found. they just call it "convergent evolution". means similar structure evolve in unrelated species like this one:

this claim of talkorigin is simply false.

(image from How Evolution Gave Some Fish Their Electric Powers)

Once again, this is what I had asked, " Why is it when we line up the fossils that we find in the Cambrian next to those found in the Ordivician followed by those found in the Siluran, etc., it looks like evolution?"

its not. we just find different groups of creatures at different time. cars and trucks and airplanes were also made in a different time in the history. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[Kylie]

it means that we dont need many mutations to move from one functional gene to another. its important because in such case the chance is much higher and evolution can evolve a new structure\function easily. but we know that many structures are very different from each other so those sequences are separated well in the sequence space. means that you will need many mutations to move from one gene to another if they are very different. now, we may able to move from one gene to a similar one. but the fact that many sequence arent similar is evidence that those specific sequences cant evolve from each other.

Huh? Are you talking about one gene changing over time to another gene or two genes that exist simultaneously?

 

[Speedwell]

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies"

so what about this example?:

View attachment 219748

To start with, it's just something you made up out of your own head, and does not represent the true developmental history of motor vehicles.

 

[Heissonear]

second: i talked about the missing fossils. if an animal has about 30 pairs of legs it means that it evolved them stepwise. so we need to find all the fossils from 2 pairs of legs to 30 (or at least several of them). so where are them?

.

You are very clear on missing sequences in fossil record.

There have been billions of fossils unearthed but paleontology textbooks have zero sequential fossil record presented in the big thick texts. Zero proof of evolution from one species to another.

When I took the course it took a lot of faith to believe what was presented. I was a lost godless geologist, having to live by faith.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No sir, the fact that a small member of the Felidae family can mate with a larger member does not prove that domestic cats can breed with tigers.

I don't even think Great Danes and chihuahuas can reliably interbreed. Anyone is free to present a living cross of a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[xianghua]

Huh? Are you talking about one gene changing over time to another gene

yep. now, we may be able to go from one gene to another similar one but what make you think that all genes in nature are near each other?

 

[Kylie]

yep. now, we may be able to go from one gene to another similar one but what make you think that all genes in nature are near each other?

When did I say they were? Do you think that small single-bit changes are the only way for genes to change?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Fly, Eagles, Fly!

true. and in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. so what we do have? we have billions of creatures today that basically stay the same creatures as far as we can see. so i go by the evidence (cat staying as cat) and you go against the evidence (cat can be change into a different creature).

Ah, got me there. We know animals have been popping into existence out of thin air millions of times over millions of years, because we have seen it happening ourselves in our lifetime but...wait, what?

You drinking something you shouldn't? You are responding here to a question about how you know creation happened by the "popping into existence out of nothing" method you prefer instead of evolution. And you have the nerve to say you go by the evidence you have? Sir you have never seen an animal pop into existence out of nothing. Please don't pretend you have.

If you ever see an animal pop into existence out of nothing, stop smoking whatever it was you were smoking.

But people have seen species come into existence by varying from existing species. See Observed Instances of Speciation .

Fly, Eagles, Fly!

realy? from your own source:

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies"

so what about this example?:

View attachment 219748

Interesting you should quote that source, because it gives several paragraphs describing in detail why made up hierarchies like cars are not the same as what we observe in evolution. It says:

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
​

The analysis for evolution gives a "unique, consistent, well-supported tree". The contrived tree for cars is one of many possible trees you could create. It is not consistent or well supported. And that page references detailed statistical analysis showing this consistency overwhelmingly found in evolution.

You love to quote statistics--wrongfully, I might add--when you think they support your side. Do you also quote the statistics that support evolution? The page I referenced gives references to the primary literature so you can see the case.

Fly, Eagles, Fly!

they continue:
"It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings"

and this is indeed what we found. they just call it "convergent evolution". means similar structure evolve in unrelated species like this one:

this claim of talkorigin is simply false.

(image from How Evolution Gave Some Fish Their Electric Powers)

Again, you are finding one characteristic that does not fit well with one tree. That is not what we are talking about when we refer to nested heirarchies. We are talking about dozens of criteria--molecular, microscopic, and macroscopic--that almost all align with the same arrangement, in a way that is statistically overwhelming.

Fly, Eagles, Fly!

 

[xianghua]

When did I say they were? Do you think that small single-bit changes are the only way for genes to change?

it doesnt matter if the change is big or small. what doest matter is that many sequence are very different from each other and therefore the chance to evolve a completely different sequence is very low.

 

[xianghua]

Ah, got me there. We know animals have been popping into existence out of thin air millions of times over millions of years, because we have seen it happening ourselves in our lifetime but...wait, what?

actually we did seen something similar:

Tiny Artificial Life: Lab-Made Bacterium Sports Smallest Genome Yet

so we have evidence for instantaneous creation and zero evidence for evolution. interesting.

But people have seen species come into existence by varying from existing species. See Observed Instances of Speciation .

but speciation is just variation of the same creature. so its not evolution in terms of new kind (family in general) of creature. we even know about different genera that are able to interbreed.

Interesting you should quote that source, because it gives several paragraphs describing in detail why made up hierarchies like cars are not the same as what we observe in evolution.

ok. lets test this claim. first: they said:

"A cladistic analysis of cars will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies"

can you give an example of that in cars?

Again, you are finding one characteristic that does not fit well with one tree. That is not what we are talking about when we refer to nested heirarchies. We are talking about dozens of criteria

great. we found that too:

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,”

or this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990217075533.htm

"The research included 24 genes from the nucleus and 9 DNA segments from the mitochondria of reptile cells. Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges.

again: this argument is completely false. another good evidence against a theistic evolution is the fact that most if not all designed objects we know about are the product of instantaneous design. so what make you think it will be different in this case?