the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.

This is just another example of how creationist beliefs differ wildly from one to another.

 

[xianghua]

I'm not the one deciding this. I'm merely using the standard definition you'll find in a biology textbook.

Arguing about the definition is quite frankly a completely pointless endeavor because a definition isn't going to change just because you've decided you don't like it.

again: under that definition even creationism is true.

 

[xianghua]

Yes. The underlying dataset consists of a DNA sequence for those genes.



But even if you're basing it on only a few parts, you still need to first construct a dataset based on those parts. And then apply a phylogenetic algorithm to that data. So far you haven't demonstrated you've constructed such a dataset, nor utilized an algorithm to construct a tree.

No dataset and no algorithm = no phylogenetic tree.

no problem. most trucks (if not all) has steps. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.

 

[Speedwell]

no problem. most trucks (if not all) has stairs. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.

Stairs???

 

[pitabread]

no problem. most trucks (if not all) has stairs. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.

First of all, I have no idea what trucks you are looking at but trucks where I live do not have "stairs". (Is it this maybe another language barrier issue?). If you're talking about foot steps found on long-haul trucks, know that most trucks don't actually have steps nor are foot steps unique to trucks. I have an SUV that has a footstep for example and it looks more like a car than a truck.

It's also possible to retrofit steps on any vehicle which is the usually the case when vehicles are used to transport disabled individuals.

So in essence all you've done is disproven your point. That nested hierarchies don't apply to non-living or non-evolved things.

Second of all, what you've presented is even a data set. A data set is a fully compiled list of all the originating data on which the phylogenetic tree is constructed.

You don't have appear to have a data set and you consequently don't have a phylogenetic tree. You're just being silly.

 

[pitabread]

Stairs???

Maybe he's taking about the foot steps found on long-haul trucks. Regardless, such features are certainly not found on all trucks nor unique to trucks themselves.

 

[xianghua]

The "truth" I see is that you have made a slanderous accusation you can't back up.

realy? here are 2 cases:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.

or:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly".

 

[dad]

Science simply assumes the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive.

In other words it must comply with godless beliefs or somehow it is freaky and deceptive.

You've opted to believe the universe is inherently deceptive.

No. I found out science was deceived. The universe is fine, thanks.

So naturally, there is going to be a gap there which you appear unable to bridge.

Between the faith based models of science and the recorded word of God there is a big difference. They are opposites and come from different spirits.

Again, you're welcome to your own beliefs about the nature of the universe but it's not particularly useful or relevant in a discussion related to scientific inquiry. You see scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origin sciences. Fanatical belief plastering onto evidences and creation denial is what they are all about.

 

[dad]

again: speciation isnt evolution of a new creature. its just variation of exist family. like we see in human. but they all still humans so its not realy evolution of a new kind of creature.

Great, so could all that --whatever you want to call it-- have happened in nature of today in 4500 years?

 

[dad]

im not sure about that (although i may make some interesting points about this). but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.

So you do not believe all that speciation could have happened since the flood. I guess you do not believe in the worldwide flood, or the bible then?

 

[doubtingmerle]

im not sure about that (although i may make some interesting points about this). but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.

He did not ask you if you thought the earth might be old. He asked if you think the speciation that you refer to all happened in the last 4500 years.


4500 years ago, do you think the lion and domestic cat were the same species?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you going to run away and hide from defining "new kind of creature" like you ran away and hid from the same question when I asked it over on the Physical and Life Sciences board?

I predict he will hide, yes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Reality of the pre flood world is not something you know about. So when you get some evidence that God was lying about how it was, get back to us. Reality is not something that is limited to this week.

If there was a flood, why no evidence of it? We know what floods do, sweeping debris up and then letting it settle, with the heaviest stuff falling first, and with progressively lighter stuff filling in above it. Why don't we find such a global layer? Did God hide the evidence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your so called ancients are post flood. Getting off the boat, and maybe not having any metal working specialists or factories, or, for that matter a whole lot of time means we would not expect great metal works post flood.

They don't make that former state pitch like they used to eh?

Interesting. So 5000 years ago there were great metal factories? And all Noah needed to do was order a large shipment of channel iron to brace his boat?

That's odd. One would think archeologists would have noticed if this was happening in the stone age.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no problem. most trucks (if not all) has steps. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.

According to that trait, yes. According to other traits, no. The tree of life is based on many traits.

"Truck" is an arbitrary term for a vehicle that carries much cargo. "Heavy truck" is an arbitrary term for a vehicle that hauls more cargo than a light truck. All you are doing is sorting vehicles by cargo capacity. And by definition, vehicles that have larger cargo capacity will be designed to carry more cargo.

So when you point out that vehicles with large cargo capacities (trucks) tend to be designed for large cargo capacity (truck bed, large wheels, step to get up to the cab over the wheels) you are stating little more than a tautology.

 

[pitabread]

No. I found out science was deceived. The universe is fine, thanks.

Not liking the consequences of your own philosophical beliefs doesn't change those consequences. You've already admitted to believing that the nature of our reality is inherently deceptive based on all your "alternate past" silliness.

It's your own philosophy, you might as well just own it. Changing your own argument makes you look inconsistent.

You see scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origin sciences. Fanatical belief plastering onto evidences and creation denial is what they are all about.

Remember when you said this:

Try to stick to what you do have some idea about.

You might want to take that advice right about now.

 

[loveofourlord]

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

well havn't read all 60+ pages so may go over some points others have but but a few issues I see with this.

1. A created designer of one kind isn't evidence for another, we have such evolving things on a mechanical level right now, they are evolutionary programs that are designed to use evolution to find the most efficient means of doing certain things. Were even nearing the point of having machines create machines using this process. What if we went to a dead planet, left a self replicating watch there and let it evolve, maybe some process there on the planet gives a survival mechanism, in order for Timex in the future to have the perfect atomic watch. Finding such a thing doesn't prove that all life on earth had a creator, especially in the way ID/creationists think. I accept theistic evolution which is god started the big bang and gave earth the means to start abiogenesis, but like any good experimenter, sat back and enjoyed the process without the need to fiddle every time.

2. It would need to be self replicating with error, this is the key part of evolution, the errors that crop up and build over time, with the filters to edit out, fatal, flawed, less useful errors. And something to allow beneficial mutations, like in example 1, some reason why being 0.000001% more acurate would allow it to survive better.

3. we might as well be arguing, "What if we find a planet where time is a million times faster and we can see a new planet go from barren to our level of evolution in a few years, what would creationists think? I'm not really convinced and find such arguments as, "What if we found this evidence that perfectly proves my point." well good find it, and then show how it proves your point.

 

[dad]

If there was a flood, why no evidence of it?

I think you mean why can't you recognize the evidence of it. That would be because the belief system of science is closed and small.

We know what floods do, sweeping debris up and then letting it settle, with the heaviest stuff falling first, and with progressively lighter stuff filling in above it. Why don't we find such a global layer? Did God hide the evidence?

Why would we expect to find a world that was undisturbed? Since the flood, the continents moved, there was massive shoving, uplift, mountain building, volcanic activity, etc.

 

[dad]

Interesting. So 5000 years ago there were great metal factories?

Yes. Remember though that in your imaginary religious based fantasy pretend years, it was probably about 70,000 years ago! So, the math is 70,000,000 IY (imaginary years) = 4500 AY (actual years). Yes they worked with metal then, and even before that.

And all Noah needed to do was order a large shipment of channel iron to brace his boat?

Maybe they had more advanced metal that that. The devolution of man and his mind could be a factor. But if Noah did use any metal, one assumes there was a manufacturing site not too far from where he lived.

That's odd. One would think archeologists would have noticed if this was happening in the stone age.

Can they look miles under the earth in some cases where subduction may have happened, or area got ploughed under mountains, etc etc? Was there any massive tsunamis in the area that may have smashed buildings to rubble? Try to get over the idea that the flod was some sort of lake flooding a village or something. It was an elaborately planned operation involving things like water being transported from across the universe.

 

[pitabread]

It was an elaborately planned operation involving things like water being transported from across the universe.

Y'know, I never get tired about the amazing fantasy fiction creationists come up with. Probably why I still hang out here.