the self replicating watch argument

Jjmcubbin · Feb 21, 2018

Seriously, what is your obsession with living and inanimate objects being the same?
Your argument is really dumb, as I've said in one of your many other arguments because it be used so easily for design by a human instead of a god. That's the best I've found to reveal the holes in your argument.

dad · Feb 21, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
People can attribute anything to just about anything, including things that only exist in their imagination.

The thing about evolution is, that there is no attributing. Instead, predictions flow naturally from the model. One of those predictions, is the nested hierarchy.

Irrelevant if creation would produce the same thing. Name anything specific in the hierarchy that requires evolution theory?

I just did....

You can arbitrarily attribute it to creation (which actually means that you simply claim that god-did-it).

But in context of evolution, it is not arbitrary nore is it "attributed".

False. Of course it is. You attribute all things to evolution arbitrarily. All similarities etc. We can attribute them to created kinds also, and add in the evolving as well. We get a fuller, less dogmatic and biased picture that way.

It is predicted by the very nature of the model/process. As in: if it turns out that the nested hierarchy does not exist, then evolution is incorrect.

False.

You can predict the sun comes to exist by us putting on sunglasses. That is not any real prediction. Nor is predicting similar creatures will exist exclusive to evolution.

But if the nested hierarchy does not exist, it wouldn't change anything to your god-did-it-model.

In other words, if God created another way, we would see another sort of order. That says nothing.

dad · Feb 21, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
Seriously, what is your obsession with living and inanimate objects being the same?
Your argument is really dumb, as I've said in one of your many other arguments because it be used so easily for design by a human instead of a god. That's the best I've found to reveal the holes in your argument.

It is not dumb to acknowledge that intricately created things, alive or dead need a maker.

pitabread · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
since those are random images its actually represent an objective data.

Except a Google search isn't random. It's predicated on Google's algorithm which is designed to return the most relevant results (including results based on previous Google usage by individuals).

In fact, exploiting search engine algorithms is one of the core components of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) methods which web sites use to try to rank higher in the results.

So no, you'd need to do a proper representative sample before trying to make any such claims. And a Google image search ain't that.

actually all i need to do is to check for most traits and see what we will get.

This is kind of like saying all you need to do to fly to the Moon is build a rocket ship out of popsicle sticks.

You're so out of your depth here you don't even know why you are wrong and how to fix it. Like our prior discussions, this is going absolutely nowhere.

Back on the ignore list you go.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 21, 2018

dad said:
It is not dumb to acknowledge that intricately created things, alive or dead need a maker.

By using this argument, one can argue than humans created all the biodiversity we see today (the whole argument is flawed, but that's my point). So, you're saying humans created whales, and the anglerfish? How? Just how? It IS dumb.

dad · Feb 21, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
By using this argument, one can argue than humans created all the biodiversity we see today (the whole argument is flawed, but that's my point). So, you're saying humans created whales, and the anglerfish? How? Just how? It IS dumb.

No. But God did. We are created in His image, so even we can make some things. A watch is obviously created. A car also. So is a hummingbird.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 21, 2018

dad said:
No. But God did. We are created in His image, so even we can make some things. A watch is obviously created. A car also. So is a hummingbird.

Why do we stop at god? I am just extending his argument to give you some insight.
Here,
"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 by human 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 which for a watch is a human, similarly for the self replicating one)"
It is the same exact argument but about humans. It is just as valid (invalid, to be correct) as the god one.

loveofourlord · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
genetic algorithm actually use a target, so every correct step toward the target will reserve.

thats how evolution works, except in it's case the goals are set by the enviorment and other creatures. Does it need to be faster, stronger, stealthier, able to climb trees or what ever. as the old saying goes, I don't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun you.

loveofourlord · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
and what the problem with that? are you saying that there isnt enough place in the ark for all living species?

Not enough room, and even allowing for some form of evolution it's unlikly there is enough room without some kind of super evolution.

loveofourlord · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
ok. according to evolution a fish evolved into a human. can we prove such a claim?

sure. so say that we start with a self replicating matter. how we will get a watch by stepwise? what will be the first step?

we have the fossil record that shows the progression from fish species upwards.

loveofourlord · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
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.

I know not part of the talk but I'm a bit late, but the whole idea of the same designer is flawed, as it makes the designer look wasteful and incompetent in humans.

it's not just that the designer used ape part and design to make humans, just as human designers made a truck using car designs. but it's closer to a truck designer using all the parts from a car to make a truck, including all the parts that make no sense, and are just welded to the inside of the truck.

as species and human's don't just have the parts we share with apes we have the parts that we don't use from apes, and not talking about apendix. But we have gernes for things that apes have that we don't, like a protein that would make our jaw stronger, but also would prevent us from speaking.

We have animals like dolphins that don't smell using same genes have genes for smelling in air though they don't actually work.

among other things, we have alot of genes and so do every other animal that doesn't make sense without evolution. Why would god use all the genes for a ape and then turn them off, it's not like he has limited resources or intelect.

dad · Feb 21, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
Why do we stop at god? I am just extending his argument to give you some insight.
Here,
"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 by human 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 which for a watch is a human, similarly for the self replicating one)"
It is the same exact argument but about humans. It is just as valid (invalid, to be correct) as the god one.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. The issue is whether some machine was made or just came to exist by random events.

doubtingmerle · Feb 21, 2018

xianghua said:
actually i did it too. trucks in general are more similar to each other then to cars. we are talking about many traits and not just one or two.

Trucks are similar to each other because they are built for hauling big loads. That generally means bigger tires and engines, and a truck bed.

Again, trucks are defined as vehicles to carry heavy loads, and thus all have designs to carry heavy loads. So you are not comparing multiple independent features. The features that trucks have in common over cars can all be determined by four words, "designed for heavy loads". You are simply sorting vehicles by the ability to carry heavy loads.

You can do no such thing for the features that mammals have in common. They have multiple features in common, because heredity has made them that way, not because they needed to be that way.

Dolphins and tuna have very similar environment and functions, but dolphins are placental mammals and tunas are not. Dolphins have the features of placental mammals, such as mammary glands, hair, three bones in their ear, and live birth. They don't have this because they need them and tunas don't. They have these features because of heredity.

Trucks are different. They have the design features necessary for carrying big loads because they were designed to carry big loads.

all placental mammals shared a placenta too. are you saying that this is the product of a common descent too?

Yes, of course, having a placenta and live birth are inherited traits for all placental mammals. It could easily be that a dolphin-like creature would reproduce like tunas. But they don't, because they are placental mammals, and so they reproduce that way.

some cars actually have big wheels too (monster vehicles for instance).

Sure. That does not refute the point that, since trucks are built to carry heavy loads, by definition they tend to have big wheels and big engines, and thus usually cabs that sit high. So the trait to have a high cab is not independent of being designed for carrying heavy loads.

Again, what you are doing is lining vehicles up on one trait, carrying heavy loads. When we classify animals, we are not doing that. In animals there are multiple different layers of division using different characteristics at each division, and producing a nested hierarchy that can readily be seen as correct, and has statistically been shown to be correct. See Nested Hierarchy: Evidence for Evolution.

DogmaHunter · Feb 22, 2018

dad said:
In other words, if God created another way, we would see another sort of order. That says nothing.

No. Rather: in other words, your god-did-it-model is unfalsifiable stuff, indistinguishable from just about any other unfalsifiable model that our imagination can produce - which is potentially infinite in number.

It means that this model has exact zero merrit, value, meaning and explanatory power.

It is... utterly useless.

dad · Feb 22, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
No. Rather: in other words, your god-did-it-model is unfalsifiable stuff, indistinguishable from just about any other unfalsifiable model that our imagination can produce - which is potentially infinite in number.

It means that this model has exact zero merrit, value, meaning and explanatory power.

It is... utterly useless.

Your inability to go very deep and understand creation does not mean it has no merit, it means science has no merit in origin issues!

Science cannot falsify the very premise of a same state nature in the past it uses for all models of the past. Science cannot detect God, or the spiritual, or the future or the far past, so how would they falsify creation or God? The only thing so called science seems to take seriously is Goddidn'tdoanything scenarios. That is why they cannot be taken seriously any more.

Your reliance on what you did not even realize was a hopelessly inadequate fossil record to determine connections (all of which you religiously assume must be attributed to evolution) makes it impossible for you to intelligently interpret the evidence.

DogmaHunter · Feb 22, 2018

dad said:
Your inability to go very deep and understand creation does not mean it has no merit, it means science has no merit in origin issues!

Your inability to comprehend what "merrit" means in this context, simply bars your from having any valuable input on this topic.

Science cannot falsify the very premise of a same state nature in the past it uses for all models of the past

The null hypothesis does not need any evidence.
You are the one who's making the claim that the universe was different in the past. Upto you to demonstrate or support that.

You can not, off course.
It's just a (rather bizar) religious belief.

More then likely, simply invented ad hoc because you realise that what you dogmatically believe religiously, does not hold up at all when put in context of observable reality. So in order to feel half justified in those beliefs, you invented this "different state past" thingy.

It's just silly.

Science cannot detect God, or the spiritual, or the future or the far past, so how would they falsify creation or God?

Science can't falsify the unfalsifiable.
The undetectable 7-headed dragon included.

The only thing so called science seems to take seriously is Goddidn'tdoanything scenarios.

A more accurate way to express that would be "scenario's that actually are verifiable and supported by evidence". That your particular religious belief isn't verifiable, supportable, testable, falsifiable... is not science's fault.

That is why they cannot be taken seriously any more.

Really? So for science to be taken seriously by you, it would have to allow undemonstrable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupportable claims?

Awesome.
Reminds me of Michael Behe, who had to redefine what "scientific theory" means so that he could call "intelligent design" a scientific theory and by doing so, had to admit that astrology is a proper scientific theory as well.

It's kind of telling when you need to redefine science to also include pseudo-science, in order to be able to defend your religious beliefs.

Your reliance on what you did not even realize was a hopelessly inadequate fossil record to determine connections (all of which you religiously assume must be attributed to evolution) makes it impossible for you to intelligently interpret the evidence.

All fossils could disappear instantly and the case for evolution would be as strong as ever, because of the genetic record alone.

PsychoSarah · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
fine. so what about all those different structures?

What about them?

xianghua said:
we need to believe that all of them were near each other at a sequence space of about 4^1000 possibilities.

-_- you seem to be assuming that the size of the genome has remained constant throughout evolutionary history, which is not the case. Plus, I do not understand your acquired obsession with how distant or close genes are to each other, given that genes don't need to be physically near to be expressed in conjunction.

xianghua said:
i actually bring it as a reference for the number of tries since earth formation if you remember.

Which makes absolutely no sense. The number of mutations overall is the number of tries; not hitting the ball doesn't mean I didn't swing the bat.

xianghua said:
are you saying that we only need to add a single part, and from a non moving fish we will get a moving fish?

Don't know how you get that from me mentioning how a SINGLE FIN could acquire the ability to move rather than being a static structure from one mutation. After all, having extra muscles or missing a few is actually rather common.

Your entire line of thought is bunk because the capacity to move predates multicellular organisms. That is, there is no reason that the first multicellular organism wouldn't have had the capacity for movement to begin with. You act as if the capacity to move has to independently evolve over and over for no apparent reason, as if how a single cell moves can't possibly contribute to the genes that allow a multicellular organism to move. Heck, even sea sponges, which don't have a nervous system or muscles, have the capacity to move. It becomes more complex over time, stop acting as if the movement had to start with the fish.

xianghua · Feb 22, 2018

Speedwell said:
What target is that?

it depend what you choose..

iEye · Feb 22, 2018

Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand.—Neil Armstrong

Speedwell · Feb 22, 2018

xianghua said:
it depend what you choose..

I don't choose a target. The process of evolution has no long term target beyond the increased fitness of the next generation.

the self replicating watch argument

Active Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Undefeated!

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Undefeated!

I'll think about it.

Code Monkey

Undefeated!

Code Monkey

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Captain

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency