the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

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.

...And therefore the chance that animals popped into existence out of thin air is high?

Sorry, your conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

-_- by virtue of there only being 4 nucleotide bases in DNA, DNA strands of equal length should be about 25% similar to each other regardless of any relatedness between them. Plus, every single protein has to start with methionine, so all genes have to share some similarity, even if I went out of my way to try to design ones as different from each other as possible.

In any case, as the common UCA theory implies, all genomes on this planet were derived from the same basic one far back in the past, thus none of them "evolved as completely different sequences".

 

[Kylie]

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.

And you don't think that many small changes can add up over generations to make a larger change?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Wow, but this is not even close to what you claim, that there were many creation events in which creatures popped into existence out of thin air. I claim there was no need for anyone to guide evolution, but if it turns out someone was guiding the process, then I think he most likely would have worked by modifying the genes here and there. And what do you cite? You cite an article where people manipulated existing genetic material to make a unique bacteria. In other words you cite an article where humans did something similar to what I say a God would have done if he was involved in the creation process. How is this proof that God did what you say, which is the exact opposite?

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.

But if species split, and those species split again, and the process continues for millions of years, the end result can be huge. The horse family split off from other families about 50 million years ago. So to get a change on a scale where the separations make the equivalent of two families, you need tens of millions of years.

I am not old enough to have directly observed a process that takes 50 million years. Are you?

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?

Sure. You could divide cars out by type of engine, then by number of cupholders, then by color, then by transmissions. Or you could divide cars by manufacturer, then by make, then by type of radio, then by number of passengers. Or you could divide cars by height, then by type of wheels, then by price, then by safety features. You end up with completely different phylogenies. There is no one phylogeny that people would agree with as the correct way to classify cars.

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,”

There is a lot of hype here about nothing. The trees look very different but it turns out they are the same basic hierarchy rooted at different places. Phylogeny only shows which are most closely related to which, and not at which point the root to the common ancestor should be placed. See Evolution and the Tree of Life: How Hyperbole Poisons Everything | HuffPost.

Do the exercise: Write out the words elephant, dog, cow, human, rabbit, Guinea Pig, Rat, Mouse. Then above it show the one branching structure on their picture, and below it show the other branching structure. Both structures work with this arrangement, and both show the same nested hierarchy. The only difference is the location of the root.

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.

This one is a little more meaningful. Basically lepidosaurs (snakes and lizards) and turtles split off from the bulk of the reptile line. There are 3 possibilities. 1)Turtles split off first, then lepidosaurs, 2) lepidosaurs split off first, then turtles, or 3) a single branch broke off that quickly divided into two more branches, the lepidosaurs and the turtles. There can be differences of opinion here, but the difference is not that great. Imagine a large limb on a tree with two branches that come off at nearly the same place. From a distance it may be hard to tell if the left branch is closer to the trunk, the right branch is closer to the trunk, or the two actually merge before they connect to the rest of the tree. See Amniote phylogeny and the position of turtles . None of this means that the tree does not have a clear branching hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

And you don't think that many small changes can add up over generations to make a larger change?

sure. but what is the chance for that? remember my example again: if we had only 2 functional sequences in a space of a billion possible sequences, what is the chance to get a new functional sequence from another one?

 

[Kylie]

sure. but what is the chance for that? remember my example again: if we had only 2 functional sequences in a space of a billion possible sequences, what is the chance to get a new functional sequence from another one?

The chances are very good.

If you flip a billion coins, what are the chances that they will all come up tails? Pretty amazingly low. But, if we then go through and flip the just the coins that landed on heads, we would find that many more are now tails (because we left the coins that came up tails the first time alone). And then we do it again and again, and it won't be long at all before all the coins are tails.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

perches and mudskippers and salamanders all exist at the same time, so they obvious aren't part of some same evolutionary line. It is however true that salamanders evolved from some mudskipper LIKE creature, which evolved from some KIND of early fish.

The fossil record proves the evolution of whales.

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

Nothing ever goes to being exactly like it once was -- there is no exact repetition. But similar forms can evolve. Whales are the most obvious example, reinventing fins and tails for swimming, as to a lesser degree have seals, sea lions, walruses, etc.

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 don't know that things evolved stepwise. Things could have jumped suddenly from 2 legs to 30 legs, without 8 legs in between. You don't know what kind of random mutation set in which was adaptive.

 

[Meowzltov]

sure. but what is the chance for that?

Given 3.5 billion years, a LOT.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you flip a billion coins, what are the chances that they will all come up tails? Pretty amazingly low. But, if we then go through and flip the just the coins that landed on heads, we would find that many more are now tails (because we left the coins that came up tails the first time alone). And then we do it again and again, and it won't be long at all before all the coins are tails.

I estimate 30 or so attempts should do it.

 

[xianghua]

all genomes on this planet were derived from the same basic one far back in the past, thus none of them "evolved as completely different sequences".

first: this is just a belief and second: have you heard about orphans genes?:

Orphan gene - Wikipedia

 

[xianghua]

You cite an article where people manipulated existing genetic material to make a unique bacteria.

actually they also created an artificial copy:

Synthetic genome resets biotech goals : Nature News

"Last week's announcement by researchers in the United States that they have created a synthetic copy of a bacterial genome"

or artificial cell:

Seminar: Artificial cell design and the origin of life (by Dr. Jack Szostak, 2009 Nobel Laureate of Physiology or Medicine)

and we do call it instantaneous creation.

But if species split, and those species split again, and the process continues for millions of years, the end result can be huge. The horse family split off from other families about 50 million years ago. So to get a change on a scale where the separations make the equivalent of two families, you need tens of millions of years.

again; this is just a belief. i can say the same for inanimate car. we see small changes in a car. therefore think what could be in millions of years to the car. maybe it can evolve to something like an airplane.

Sure. You could divide cars out by type of engine, then by number of cupholders, then by color, then by transmissions. Or you could divide cars by manufacturer, then by make, then by type of radio, then by number of passengers. Or you could divide cars by height, then by type of wheels, then by price, then by safety features. You end up with completely different phylogenies. There is no one phylogeny that people would agree with as the correct way to classify cars.

actually there is. we can classify them by most parts. so generally a car will be more similar to other car then to trucks for instance. or we can classify them by the company since usually cars from the same company are more similar to each other then to cars from other company.

There is a lot of hype here about nothing. The trees look very different but it turns out they are the same basic hierarchy rooted at different places.

if the trees look different then talkorigin criteria is what we found:

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

so basically if we will find say a shark genes that are more similar to human genes then to other fish evolution will be in problem according to talkorigin criteria.

 

[xianghua]

The chances are very good.

If you flip a billion coins, what are the chances that they will all come up tails? Pretty amazingly low. But, if we then go through and flip the just the coins that landed on heads, we would find that many more are now tails (because we left the coins that came up tails the first time alone). And then we do it again and again, and it won't be long at all before all the coins are tails.

i forgot to mention that you will have only one try. so what is the chance to get a functional seuqence if we know there are only about 2 functional sequences out of a billion combinations?

 

[xianghua]

perches and mudskippers and salamanders all exist at the same time, so they obvious aren't part of some same evolutionary line. It is however true that salamanders evolved from some mudskipper LIKE creature, which evolved from some KIND of early fish.

The fossil record proves the evolution of whales.

the time doesnt matter since the hierarchy by itself doesnt prove evolution.

You don't know that things evolved stepwise. Things could have jumped suddenly from 2 legs to 30 legs, without 8 legs in between. You don't know what kind of random mutation set in which was adaptive.

from 2 pairs into 30? its like human evolve 30 pairs of legs at once. and its also need to be beneficial.

 

[Kylie]

i forgot to mention that you will have only one try. so what is the chance to get a functional seuqence if we know there are only about 2 functional sequences out of a billion combinations?

Woah, why only one try? Do you think evolution has only one try?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i forgot to mention that you will have only one try. so what is the chance to get a functional seuqence if we know there are only about 2 functional sequences out of a billion combinations?

In your world cars have babies, origin of life has only one chance to make the molecules it needs, and animals are constantly popping into existence out of thin air?

Here on planet earth, things are quite different from your planet.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Woah, why only one try? Do you think evolution has only one try?

I think he just moved the goalposts.

 

[Meowzltov]

the time doesnt matter since the hierarchy by itself doesnt prove evolution.




from 2 pairs into 30? its like human evolve 30 pairs of legs at once. and its also need to be beneficial.

I stand by what I said.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Goodness gracious, I never in my life expected to see this: A creationist quoting successful origin of life research to prove it is not unreasonable to think God quickly created life!

actually they also created...artificial cell:

Seminar: Artificial cell design and the origin of life (by Dr. Jack Szostak, 2009 Nobel Laureate of Physiology or Medicine)

and we do call it instantaneous creation.

Sorry, nobody there is talking about your view, that life suddenly sprung up fully formed out of thin air many times over the ages.

Rather, they are talking about advancements in understanding self-replicating molecules that could have been the kind that led to life. It is worth repeating what they say:

The Szostak lab is currently focused on the laboratory synthesis of self-replicating systems, with the goal of understanding how life emerged from the chemistry of the early earth. This approach is based on the view that the two key components of a primitive cell are a self-replicating nucleic acid genome, and a self-replicating cell membrane. The lab has recently discovered a simple and robust pathway for the coupled growth and division of a model primitive cell membrane, and has made considerable experimental progress towards the synthesis of self-replicating nucleic acids. It is hoped that future progress will lead to the spontaneous emergence of Darwinian evolutionary behavior from replicating chemical systems.​

Sir, that is evidence for evolution, not out of thin air creation.

Again, I don't think God needed to be involved, but if he was, it makes more sense to me that he would have actually done something like these scientists did, rather than constantly popping into existence lions and tigers and bears, oh my, as if he was making popcorn.

 

[Rivga]

Again, I don't think God needed to be involved, but if he was, it makes more sense to me that he would have actually done something like these scientists did,

What is very clear is that if someone has been manipulating evolution to create different species then that entity is not All knowing (and thus not God). The mess and poor decisions that have been made if evolution has been guided by an entity is amazing.

There are only 3 ways that this could be the case
1) A God who likes a huge Joke
2) An entity that is preforming trial and error
3) No involvement by any entity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually there is. we can classify them by most parts. so generally a car will be more similar to other car then to trucks for instance. or we can classify them by the company since usually cars from the same company are more similar to each other then to cars from other company.

There are hundreds of ways to classify cars. If you compare a Chevy truck with all the options to a base Ford truck, a base Chevy car, or a Jeep with nearly identical options, which would you classify the Chevy truck as closest to? One might go by the company trim and select the Chevy car, one might go by the shape of the vehicle and select the Ford, one might go by the long list of options and pick the Jeep. Each picks a different vehicle as the closest to that Chevy truck.

We don't find this confusion with animals. Rather, there are a great many criteria that all point to the same groupings.

if the trees look different then talkorigin criteria is what we found:

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

But we are not finding species that combine characteristics of nested groupings. Rather, we are finding that reptiles divided into groups A, B, and C at close to the same time, and we are not sure whether A, B or C was the first to break off from the others. That in no way refutes all we know about the nested hierarchy.

so basically if we will find say a shark genes that are more similar to human genes then to other fish evolution will be in problem according to talkorigin criteria.

Absolutely not.

What we find is that the fish were dividing into many groups, one of which led to the early tetrapods. But the group that led to the tetrapods,--including us--was closely related to some of the fish, having seperated from them only a few million years earlier. But they had separated from other fish long before that. So as strange as it may sound, there are some fish that are genetically closer to us then they are to other fish.