the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

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.

Yes it is a question of what they look like in your belief system. Of course they are related in many cases. As I said, there was the created kinds, and then a lot of evolving.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I said, there was the created kinds, and then a lot of evolving.

Ok we have been talking here about horses, zebras and donkeys which are members of the Equus genus. These all appear to be related to a long line of extinct members of the horse family known from the fossil record. If we go back in time we see smaller members of the family, that have different feet and different diet. The earliest known family member is the Eohippus.

What is the original created zebra kind? Zebra? Equis? Eohippus? Something else?

 

[xianghua]

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

i will say there is no evolution at all. just variations.

 

[xianghua]

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.

i base this on a general similarity. do you agree that in general, 2 cars from the same company will be more similar to each other then 2 trucks from the same company?

 

[xianghua]

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.

as for the horse case i already said that i dont know since im not sure how much different those species from each other.

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?

i dont need to show what method the designer used. i only need to show design. and this is indeed what i did in this thread. i also give you evidence against evolutionery design.

 

[xianghua]

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

and if i will show you they actually do that many times what you will say?

 

[Speedwell]

and if i will show you they actually do that many times what you will say?

I will know for sure that you are a liar, or completely ignorant about what you are posting.

 

[Speedwell]

i base this on a general similarity. do you agree that in general, 2 cars from the same company will be more similar to each other then 2 trucks from the same company?

No. There is no reason to think so and I have never observed it.

 

[pitabread]

i base this on a general similarity.

"General similarity" is not a dataset. "General similarity" is not an algorithm.

A proper phylogenetic tree is based on a dataset. What is your dataset?

What you don't seem to understand is that phylogenetic trees are not arbitrary diagrams people just draw in MS Paint, like what you have done. Rather they have underlying methodologies, datasets, and mathematical rules around their construction. You can read more about it here: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

You keep claiming it's possible to construct a phylogenetic tree to demonstrate nested hierarchies of designed objects, but since you are not able to do this yourself means you can't even support your own argument.

 

[dad]

Ok we have been talking here about horses, zebras and donkeys which are members of the Equus genus. These all appear to be related to a long line of extinct members of the horse family known from the fossil record. If we go back in time we see smaller members of the family, that have different feet and different diet. The earliest known family member is the Eohippus.

What is the original created zebra kind? Zebra? Equis? Eohippus? Something else?

The fossil record won't help on that. Probably most animals and man in the former nature could not leave fossils. The creatures that could probably represent less than 5% of life on earth.

So, trying to connect modern animals to some fossil in the fossil record, as if the ancestor should be represented there....is impossible.

It is like trying to put a 500 piece puzzle together using only 220 pieces. You may think you put a skeleton picture together pretty good, but then you find out it was actually a 5000 piece puzzle that you were trying to put together with 220 pieces.

The only issue is what forces and laws (nature) used to exist at the time of the fossil record. The answer is that you do not know. Science does not know. You have merely assumed and believed that nature had to have been the same as now. Now, yes, we would maybe see fossils being left in this nature, from a broad spectrum of life on earth.

 

[dad]

"General similarity" is not a dataset. "General similarity" is not an algorithm.

A proper phylogenetic tree is based on a dataset. What is your dataset?

What you don't seem to understand is that phylogenetic trees are not arbitrary diagrams people just draw in MS Paint, like what you have done. Rather they have underlying methodologies, datasets, and mathematical rules around their construction. You can read more about it here: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

You keep claiming it's possible to construct a phylogenetic tree to demonstrate nested hierarchies of designed objects, but since you are not able to do this yourself means you can't even support your own argument.

From your link..


"Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy;[12] the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."

Now if one believes Noah lived 950 years, and that trees in that time grew in weeks, and that the nature generally was not the same as today, one would not expect that Noah and early mankind had present nature genes. How genetics works is dependent on what forces and laws exist, to make cells/molecules/atoms behave a certain way. You are assuming that modern genetics represents a connection to early man or animals. That is a belief. Nothing more.

The way genes transferred in that former nature, recombined, and etc etc is not known, and depends on the nature of that day.

Your evo trees are religion. Not mere hypothesis.

 

[dad]

i will say there is no evolution at all. just variations.

Well, if all the millions of species of animals we have had since Noah's day were all on the ark, you think there is room? There had to have been a lot of adapting/evolving from the created kinds that were on the ark since then. Do you thin there were 30 species of tigers on there for example?

 

[dad]

"General similarity" is not a dataset. .

As explained, your so called data sets are belief sets.

 

[xianghua]

Well, if all the millions of species of animals we have had since Noah's day were all on the ark, you think there is room? There had to have been a lot of adapting/evolving from the created kinds that were on the ark since then. Do you thin there were 30 species of tigers on there for example?

sure. this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.

 

[pitabread]

As explained, your so called data sets are belief sets.

The data used for phylogenetic construction are DNA sequences (or sometimes RNA). I know it's the stock creationist response to engage in blatant denialism, but if you're trying to claim that DNA is a "belief set" then I don't know what to say.

It's just weird.

 

[pitabread]

The way genes transferred in that former nature, recombined, and etc etc is not known, and depends on the nature of that day.

You're free to write whatever creationist fan fiction you like. I'll stick with the real world, thanks.

 

[pitabread]

this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.

The formation of a new species *is* evolution. Just because you don't know what evolution is doesn't change what evolution is.

 

[xianghua]

The formation of a new species *is* evolution. Just because you don't know what evolution is doesn't change what evolution is.

if you want to call variation evolution fine. but remember again that under this definition even if creationism is true evolution is true.

 

[doubtingmerle]

sure. this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.

A house cat is not basically a lion.

Just saying.

 

[xianghua]

A proper phylogenetic tree is based on a dataset.

actually many phylogenetic trees were base on a single or at least few proteins\genes. so we dont realy need to check every part in a car to build a tree.