the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

sure. but can you do that when every extra part is also functional? for instance: if we want do get a jet engine you cant do that by adding only one or 2 parts. a jet engine is very different from a car engine.

And there are similar limits to biological evolution, too. So what?

 

[xianghua]

And how did you get the numbers for the 4^1000 please?

this is the number of possible combinations for a single gene. since a tipical gene is about 1000 bp long and since there are about 4 different kinds of bp.

 

[xianghua]

And there are similar limits to biological evolution, too. So what?

so this structure cant evolve stepwise.

 

[xianghua]

I think I am winning.

i think this is the problem...

 

[xianghua]

I was referring to Xianghua's diagram in particular. It does not reflect the actual developmental hierarchy of motor vehicles.

are you saying that trucks appeared before cars?

 

[PsychoSarah]

sure. but can you do that when every extra part is also functional?

-_- given that "function" in evolution terms can be as shallow as "makes organism more attractive", the answer is yes. However, you are applying a demand that nature doesn't need to follow. As long as an added part isn't much of a detriment before reproduction, it can persist. Heck, that's how Huntington's disease persists in the population; it doesn't matter that it kills people, it kills them after they have already had kids, so natural selection doesn't weed it out.

for instance: if we want do get a jet engine you cant do that by adding only one or 2 parts. a jet engine is very different from a car engine.

Irrelevant as long as it still runs. Heck, all life on this planet has variations on the exact same "engine". I challenge you to find a single organism that doesn't perform glycolysis. The citric acid cycle in no way impedes glycolysis even if it were half formed. Same goes for the electron transport chain. Evolution doesn't replace the engine, it just adds to it. A car equivalent would be having a second engine being built on the side of the first one rather than the first one being replaced. "But Sarah, that wouldn't fit in a car", cells can grow, cars can't, deal with the fact that cars and airplanes don't have all of the same qualities as living organisms.

 

[xianghua]

-_- given that "function" in evolution terms can be as shallow as "makes organism more attractive", the answer is yes. However, you are applying a demand that nature doesn't need to follow. As long as an added part isn't much of a detriment before reproduction, it can persist. Heck, that's how Huntington's disease persists in the population; it doesn't matter that it kills people, it kills them after they have already had kids, so natural selection doesn't weed it out.


Irrelevant as long as it still runs. Heck, all life on this planet has variations on the exact same "engine". I challenge you to find a single organism that doesn't perform glycolysis. The citric acid cycle in no way impedes glycolysis even if it were half formed. Same goes for the electron transport chain. Evolution doesn't replace the engine, it just adds to it. A car equivalent would be having a second engine being built on the side of the first one rather than the first one being replaced. "But Sarah, that wouldn't fit in a car", cells can grow, cars can't, deal with the fact that cars and airplanes don't have all of the same qualities as living organisms.

so if i want to add a motion system to an animal without it, can we do that by adding a single part and then we will get a moving creature?

 

[PsychoSarah]

? i talk about axe work on beta-lactamase. he conclude (base on his work and others works too) that the chance to get this specific function is about on in 10^77 tries. how the fact that this wrok from 2004 is any relevant to this result? 10^77 is a huge number so its seems very unlikely to move from one functional gene into a totally different one.

-_- most groups of functional genes have similarities between them. For example, consider methytransferases in plants. Flowering plants often have many different variations of proteins that transfer methyl groups, and all of the methyltransferases have structural similarity even though they react with entirely different compounds.

Also, you seem to be entirely switching which sources you were referencing with me, the 10^77 number is unfamiliar.

So, if a plant already has a methytransferase for salicyclic acid, a single mutation can result in it becoming a methyltransferase for benzoic acid. This is why most new genes form from mutations on copies of existing genes (remember that it is relatively common for cells to mess up and accidentally make extra gene copies).

If the gene copy acquires multiple mutations, its function becomes more and more distant from the gene from which it originated.

10^77 doesn't even make sense, because not all genes are equal in size. Thus, the probability of getting a gene that codes a protein 500 amino acids in length would be drastically less than one that codes a protein 200 amino acids in length.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so if i want to add a motion system to an animal without it, can we do that by adding a single part and then we will get a moving creature?

Cellular organelles are always in motion. Our cell membranes are a fluid, so there are a vast variety of mutations that can result in the capacity for a cell to be mobile. Heck, in order to live, cells must be able to expel wastes, and a mutation that results in all waste expulsion being concentrated in a small area of the cell could get it moving.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i think this is the problem...

That is a problem for your view, yes.

You have implied that you have no opinion which way animals came into existence, as long as it isn't by evolution. But when we look at the evidence presented here for how the first Eohippus was made, the score is:

Eagles 41
Patriots 33
​

Whoops, wrong score. The score is:

1) Sick dino spit one out -- 0 evidences
2) Coagulation of exploding watermelon -- 0 evidences
3) Popping into existence out of nothing -- 0 evidences
4) Mutations and selection -- 29 evidences.​

So I cannot understand why you would think #4 is the least likely.

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that trucks appeared before cars?

I am saying it again. I am saying it still. The first motor vehicle was a truck designed by Nicholas Joseph Cugnot in 1770. The second motor vehicle was a bus designed by Richard Trevithic in 1801. The first car was not built until some years later, when busses were a commonplace.

History of the automobile - Wikipedia

 

[dad]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

So we need a reason to assume nature evolves into superior forms. Do you have an example of this?

 

[Kylie]

this is the number of possible combinations for a single gene. since a tipical gene is about 1000 bp long and since there are about 4 different kinds of bp.

Where do you get your knowledge about genetics from?

Do I need to remind you of the coin flip thing again?

You really don't seem to understand how genetics works.

 

[doubtingmerle]

simply wrong. we can arrange them in a general hierarchy: cars, vans and trucks. very simple.

Give it a rest, xianghua. Your nested hierarchy argument has been answered many times, and you simply ignore it.

The article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 explains why your argument from a car hierarchy is not valid. You have arranged vehicles in one of many possible hierarchies. Others could arrange by make. Others could arrange by size. Others could arrange by age or option packages. All the orders differ greatly. To be valid, your hierarchy needs to be a consistent, unique hieararchy. It is not. But life yields a consistent hierarchy. There is one simple arrangement known since Linnaeus that logically arranges all life, and is consistent with a wide range of parameters.

As explained in the video below, cars have been adding features through the years. These new features like FM radio and anti-lock brakes spread among cars, vans and trucks. That is not what we see in life. Birds developed feathers, but not all animals get feather. Mammals develop mammary glands, but not all other animals get mammary glands.

nested hierarchy - Bing video

See also the video, nested hierarchy - Bing video

 

[dad]

Give it a rest, xianghua. Your nested hierarchy argument has been answered many times, and you simply ignore it.

The article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 explains why your argument from a car hierarchy is not valid. You have arranged vehicles in one of many possible hierarchies. Others could arrange by make. Others could arrange by size. Others could arrange by age or option packages. All the orders differ greatly. To be valid, your hierarchy needs to be a consistent, unique hieararchy. It is not. But life yields a consistent hierarchy. There is one simple arrangement known since Linnaeus that logically arranges all life, and is consistent with a wide range of parameters.

"Linnaeus was not an evolutionist. Indeed, there was no such thing as a concept of evolution, in his day. Like Aristotle (and Christian creationists), he thought of species as immutable essences. This is why the Linnaean system is not a phylogeny, but a system of classifying the living world, developed at a time when species were considered the same today as when first created by an external God."

Palaeos Systematics: The Linnaean System

I would think the point of comparing a car or a watch group to creation would be to show how a car and watch do not assemble themselves.

The grouping together of similar created creatures, however one does it, is still a group of amazing creatures that could not have happened randomly.

Evolution merely sought to credit the process of evolving, with the very origin of the creatures.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"Linnaeus was not an evolutionist.

Linnaeus wrote before Darwin. His purpose was not to support evolution but to show the pattern he saw. But the pattern turns out to be as evolution predicts.

Linnaeus tried to find similar nested hierarchies for rocks but could not. The nested hierarchy exists only for living things, and is caused by the family relationships.

 

[dad]

Linnaeus wrote before Darwin. His purpose was not to support evolution but to show the pattern he saw. But the pattern turns out to be as evolution predicts.

Irrelevant. Linnaeus attributed the pattern to creation. Show us exactly in what way evolution better explains it?

Linnaeus tried to find similar nested hierarchies for rocks but could not. The nested hierarchy exists only for living things, and is caused by the family relationships.

Call created groups families if you like, it is just a name.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Irrelevant. Linnaeus attributed the pattern to creation. Show us exactly in what way evolution better explains it?

That is what one would expect from evolution. Groups divide and form a long line of descendents to another divide. Each time a divide occurs animals inherit from their ancestors , thus forming multiple nested groups of characteristics. We never see this in other sets, such as the set of chemical elements or the set of all rocks. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 .

 

[dad]

That is what one would expect from evolution. Groups divide and form a long line of descendents to another divide.

So what? If there was creation with evolution we expect the same thing. In other words the created kinds evolved. Same hierarchy.

Each time a divide occurs animals inherit from their ancestors , thus forming multiple nested groups of characteristics.

Each time a created kind evolves somewhat, we have the same divide.

We never see this in other sets,

Well, we do not see the same arrangement, for a group of watches or cars no. But we do see incredible machines that even a not so bright person could see were made. Likewise when looking at incredible animals and man we see millions of created animals that could not possibly have just evolved out of comet dust, or pond slime.

You may not claim the similarities between animals as something in the theory of evolution's corner.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So what? If there was creation with evolution we expect the same thing. In other words the created kinds evolved. Same hierarchy.

Each time a created kind evolves somewhat, we have the same divide.

Well, we do not see the same arrangement, for a group of watches or cars no. But we do see incredible machines that even a not so bright person could see were made. Likewise when looking at incredible animals and man we see millions of created animals that could not possibly have just evolved out of comet dust, or pond slime.

You may not claim the similarities between animals as something in the theory of evolution's corner.

Where do I begin? I read this and it appears you do not even understand the concept of the nested hierarchy argument, and I really can't begin teaching you the basics of nested hierarchy in a thread that is already 1100 posts long. If you are really interested, the concept is described at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 . If that is over your head, there are some good videos at

and

Perhaps some day I will start a new thread on nested hierarchy.