the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

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.

OK, so the second video seems like a bad rock concert with placards pasted in randomly.


The first video seeks to attribute similarities of various creatures to evolution. They should stop to try and say why, rather than drone on in a voice that sounds like it has bad breath and needs an attitude adjustment,


The third video starts out with a bold faced lie/strawman, again in a voice that almost makes the other guy sound pleasant. I do not say no fish has any relation to any other fish!! There was a lot of evolving from the original kinds of fish. What I do say is that you do not know what is what!

You have nothing to teach and a whole lot to learn.

 

[xianghua]

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

sure. so a protein from the same family may be close to another protein among this family. but what make you think that all functional proteins are near each other?

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.

sure. he talk a small protein about 150 aa long. if we will take a larger protein we will get even more big number.

Cellular organelles are always in motion.

i talking about a system that can move our hands to grab something. this is a complex structure that has many sub-parts. think about a robotic hand. you cant just add a single part and make it move.

 

[xianghua]

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

ok. even if its true remember that we are talking about a single designer. we also talking about modern cars. i think that both facts will fit with the hierarchy that i have showed above. im sure that some companies have made cars first, then vans and then trucks.

 

[xianghua]

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.

actually its more like:

1) made by design-- many evidence
2) made by evolution-- zero evidence. if you think you have 29 evidence for evolution think again.

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.

and many eyes also found in many unrelated species. this is why the eye suppose to evolve about 50 times convergently. and this is why talkorigin claim is false but you are welcome to ignore that fact.

 

[Skreeper]

1) made by design-- many evidence
2) made by evolution-- zero evidence. if you think you have 29 evidence for evolution think again.

I don't know where you got your science education but wherever it was, I'd sue the place if I were you.

 

[pitabread]

2) made by evolution-- zero evidence. if you think you have 29 evidence for evolution think again.

I suppose when one can't deal with the evidence, pretending it doesn't exist is the only other option.

Unfortunately for creationists, denialism has gotten them absolutely nowhere.

 

[xianghua]

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.

its true. we can arrange any objects we want, but it doesnt prove any evolution. more then that: we can find many cases of non hierarchy in nature. when we find such a case they just call it "convergent evolution".

 

[xianghua]

I don't know where you got your science education but wherever it was, I'd sue the place if I were you.

if you say so...

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually its more like:

1) made by design-- many evidence
2) made by evolution-- zero evidence. if you think you have 29 evidence for evolution think again.

And the score in the super bowl was

Philadelphia 41
By night 10?
​

You can't combine things that cannot compete and get a score.

I have told you many times that "by design" does not disprove evolution. A designer could have used evolution.

"By design" is not a method.
"Fast"is not a method.

What would you have seen if you had watched the first of any kind of animal come into existence?


Why do you refuse to tell us what method you think God used to make the first Eohippus? Since there was a nearly identical Hyracotherium around, it seems obvious that God, if he was involved, would have modified hyracatherium or its kin to get Eohippus.

Again, here are the number of evidences I have seen presented here for these four methods. If you dispute my numbers, how many evidences do you think were presented?

​

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.​

 

[doubtingmerle]

its true. we can arrange any objects we want, but it doesnt prove any evolution. more then that: we can find many cases of non hierarchy in nature. when we find such a case they just call it "convergent evolution".

Arranging in an order is far different from a nested hierarchy.

Convergence happens. None of that explains why there are many significant findings of objective nested hierarchies in animals, languages, copies of manuscripts, plants, and other things that reproduce with variation, but not in things that cannot evolve.

 

[doubtingmerle]

.



and many eyes also found in many unrelated species. this is why the eye suppose to evolve about 50 times convergently. and this is why talkorigin claim is false but you are welcome to ignore that fact.

It's not the same eye that develops different places. Rather different creatures have found different ways to detect light.

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, so the second video seems like a bad rock concert with placards pasted in randomly.


The first video seeks to attribute similarities of various creatures to evolution. They should stop to try and say why, rather than drone on in a voice that sounds like it has bad breath and needs an attitude adjustment,


The third video starts out with a bold faced lie/strawman, again in a voice that almost makes the other guy sound pleasant. I do not say no fish has any relation to any other fish!! There was a lot of evolving from the original kinds of fish. What I do say is that you do not know what is what!

You have nothing to teach and a whole lot to learn.

That is the first time I ever heard anyone complain that the speaker in a YouTube video had bad breath!

The point they were explaining was how nested hierarchies show relationships. Do you understand that now?

 

[xianghua]

It's not the same eye that develops different places. Rather different creatures have found different ways to detect light.

we actually find many cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level too. so this claim is false too.

Convergence happens

this is your belief.

None of that explains why there are many significant findings of objective nested hierarchies in animals, languages, copies of manuscripts, plants, and other things that reproduce with variation, but not in things that cannot evolve

again false:

so again zero evidence for evolution and many evidence for design, but you are welcome to continue and ignore this fact.

 

[dad]

its true. we can arrange any objects we want, but it doesnt prove any evolution. more then that: we can find many cases of non hierarchy in nature. when we find such a case they just call it "convergent evolution".

And whatever order is there is due to creation and subsequent evolving, rather than 'evolution' anyhow.

 

[dad]

That is the first time I ever heard anyone complain that the speaker in a YouTube video had bad breath!

The point they were explaining was how nested hierarchies show relationships. Do you understand that now?

The issue is why things are related. You may not claim credit for evolution.

 

[pitabread]

again false:

What is your underlying dataset and tree construction methodology for the above diagram?

Oh, the answer is "there isn't any"?

Congrats, you've falsified your own argument.

 

[Speedwell]

What is your underlying dataset and tree construction methodology for the above diagram?

Oh, the answer is "there isn't any"?

Congrats, you've falsified your own argument.

It's his way of acting out a belief that paleontologists arrange fossils arbitrarily to "prove" evolution without any other underlying rational.

 

[doubtingmerle]

xianghua, the questions will not go away. Please answer these questions. If you will not tell us what you believe, how will we know? If you think your view of origins is better than ours, why not tell us what your view is?

1) You had told us that you thought animals were probably made over a period of hundreds of millions of years, with the fossil record as evidence of the order. Are you now changing your mind?
2) Do you or do you not think different animals were probably made over a long period of hundreds of millions of years?
3) Do you or do you not think the fossil record is an indication of the order they were made? Were mammals made hundreds of millions of years after trilobites?
5) Do you or do you not think that the first Eohippus were made close to the time of the first Hyracotherium, as the fossil record indicates?
6) You have stated that all zebras, horses and Eohippus probably came from a common ancestor. Do you or do you not still believe this?
7) There is nothing close to a zebra fossil that has been found over 5 million years old. But there are probably thousands of known Eohippus around 50 million years old. How is it that you say they both came from the same ancestor when there must have been no zebras 50 million years ago, and no Eohippus in the time of zebras? Did Eohippus or its kin evolve into zebras?​

These are simple yes or no questions that come to the core of evolution and what we have been talking about.

so again zero evidence for evolution and many evidence for design, but you are welcome to continue and ignore this fact.

Again, even if you had proven design, how would that prove that the method was exploding watermelons or vomit by dinos or whatever method you think God used? How would that prove the method God used was not evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is your underlying dataset and tree construction methodology for the above diagram?

Oh, the answer is "there isn't any"?

Congrats, you've falsified your own argument.

Apparently he learned that he doesn't need data to do a Gish Gallop.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The issue is why things are related. You may not claim credit for evolution.

No the question is why things look like they are related.

I contend that that they look like they are related because they indeed are.