the self replicating watch argument

pshun2404 · May 9, 2017

Speedwell said:
Right. And all of the liberal atheistic Bible-hating scientists believe devoutly in the uselessness of "Junk" DNA (at least, according to creationists that's what they believe). They are wrong, so the theory of evolution must be a fraud. QED. That's how the argument is supposed to go, isn't it?

The ToE is not a fraud, but as it turns out about 80% of the alleged Junk has purpose, and a great deal (more being discovered day by day) is considered functional (though not in coding for proteins).

The ENCODE Project Consortium, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome,” Nature 489 (September 6, 2012): 57–74.

ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project.Science 306, 636–640 (2004)

Bungle_Bear · May 9, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Sure I am the one that does...the OP references "the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below" and provides a link which I asked you if you looked at...

Guess you did not read my post either...

here is another...take look this time

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

It's not you. Every time I say "show me a motor as a separate entity and not an integral part of an organism" you reply with "here's a motor that's an integral part of an organism."

pshun2404 · May 9, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
It's not you. Every time I say "show me a motor as a separate entity and not an integral part of an organism" you reply with "here's a motor that's an integral part of an organism."

Okay, whatever you say, it is not me! When discussing the flagella you said it is not self replicating and I conceded that you are correct, it does not self replicate. This statement "show me a motor as a separate entity, and not an integral part of an organism" seemed to come from left field. But admittedly I cannot show you a motor that is a separate entity...can you?

I do not think there is a motor that is not related to, powered through, or connected to other parts OR one that does not require a design, plan, or functional purpose. It performs the job it was intended to perform.

pshun2404 · May 9, 2017

Bruce Alberts in, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998) tells us “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

So can we at least agree that molecular and cellular machines are assemblages of specific inter-dependent parts (the plans for which are in the genes) that perform specifically intended functions in a predetermined manner?

Bungle_Bear · May 9, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Okay, whatever you say, it is not me! When discussing the flagella you said it is not self replicating and I conceded that you are correct, it does not self replicate.

Yeah, sorry I'd posted before I saw that response.

But admittedly I cannot show you a motor that is a separate entity...can you?

No, I can't and that's what I've been asking for all along. The claim (not yours initially) was that nature produces self-replicating motors. So I asked for an example of a self-replicating motor, not an example of a self-replicating organism with an inbuilt motor.

I do not think there is a motor that is not related to, powered through, or connected to other parts OR one that does not require a design, plan, or functional purpose. It performs the job it was intended to perform.

Agreed - except for the design & plan requirements

Bungle_Bear · May 9, 2017

pshun2404 said:
So can we at least agree that molecular and cellular machines are assemblages of specific inter-dependent parts (the plans for which are in the genes) that perform specifically intended functions in a predetermined manner?

Can you rephrase that without the loaded language ("plans", "intended", "predetermined manner")? I'd be happy to say that there are assemblages of inter-dependent parts that perform specific functions.

Speedwell · May 9, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Bruce Alberts in, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998) tells us “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

So can we at least agree that molecular and cellular machines are assemblages of specific inter-dependent parts (the plans for which are in the genes) that perform specifically intended functions in a predetermined manner?

Intended? How do you determine that?

USincognito · May 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
The ToE is not a fraud, but as it turns out about 80% of the alleged Junk has purpose, and a great deal (more being discovered day by day) is considered functional (though not in coding for proteins).

The ENCODE Project Consortium, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome,” Nature 489 (September 6, 2012): 57–74.

ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project.Science 306, 636–640 (2004)

The problem with ENCODE is that it didn't find "purpose", but "biological function" which was defined so loosely that garbage can be said to have "biological function" because it smells bad.

Barry Desborough · May 19, 2017

xianghua said:
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 have 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 that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall 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.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

joinfree · Jun 11, 2017

xianghua said:
.... thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Thank you. But what is difference between words "argument" and "proof"?

dmmesdale · Jun 11, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
What I said was that you cannot simply assert that self-replicating motors require a designer.

Why not? Can't believe your own eyes?

If your statement was an opinion you should have qualified it with words along the lines of "in my opinion". Without that qualification what you wrote was a bald assertion.

You mean like a self-replicating motor requires a designer is a logical conclusion that flows from the actual observation and investigation. To assume otherwise mean the burden is shifted. Now you must prove naturedidit absent a designer.

If there are two options (nature vs intelligence) then one must go, it must be falsified. In this case, nature is falsified and intelligence advances.

dmmesdale · Jun 11, 2017

u

pshun2404 said:
This is still happening now as we speak. The NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) who’s motto is “Freedom to Explore, Freedom to Think, Freedom to Create” along with The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, has demanded censorship in a South Dakota court of Law.

In the spirit of the AAUP, a bill is being debated (S.B. 55) which reads “No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.”

In their proactive propaganda campaign to censor teachers and mold what we are to think, they repeatedly refer to the bill as comparable to denying the holocaust. YET it is THEY who are demanding that the State Senate legislate “restraints” on all teachers attempting to question “content” in the State developed curriculum, demanding that all teachers “follow the script”!!! Follow the Script? Really?

The problem is that once you legislate censorship, or certain speech, or the free expression and open minded exchange of ideas, you open a slippery slope to full blown tyranny. Soon a group will come along not allowing these words or ideas expressed in public forum, then texts will have to be strictly government controlled, to assure these words or ideas are selectively excluded (like Stalin did in Soviet Russia), then the press will be held liable for printing or indicating these alternative viewpoints, and the government will have to approve all press coverage and public opinion shared therein. Finally, groups who use these words, or argue or express these ideas, will be relegated to the criteria of “other”, “inferior”, or even “bad”...bad for students, and bad for society...but they are not.

Now I know this sounds rather Hitlerian, but that’s because it is (be on guard).

Public schools are funded mostly at the state level and it sounds like the problem here is outsiders attempting to regulate curriculum. Squash an education bill. Even though schools are funded mostly at the local level there are outside non contributors that can influence school teachings thru the courts. Welcome to the United States and the world of litigation. Seeing as how the locals pay the freight for public eduation (95% in ND) they should not be hamstrung by outside non contributors. Its not like the courts will, although they should, require the outside agencies to pay say 10 mil to the schools to to enact their impositions and restrictions.

Parents have to teach these at home. Things may change in time as all the lib judges will grow old and die. I don't know why people blame the schools when not only is the curriculum regulated but how it is taught is also dictated. In this case they are into brainwashing their fictions to children under the guise and prestige of science. On the positive side, little actual classroom time is spent on all this nonsense.

Max Planck.

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

'If you would understand life, study bacteria, not rats.' Franklin Harold.

'Did life arise from by undirected processes, or did a designing intelligence play a role? Surely such questions are not settled by defining one of the competing hypotheses as ''unscientific'' and then refusing to consider it.'' Stephen C Meyer.

dmmesdale · Jun 11, 2017

pshun2404 said:
As far as generating some of their own do you mean because you do not see many of their articles published in so-called Peer Reviewed Journals? You will not because anything they submit for publishing in these sources (once ID'd as ID) is selectively excluded...(a technique used to shape public opinion)

This one made it? Although punishments followed.

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories | Center for Science and Culture

Nihilist Virus · Jun 11, 2017

The watchmaker argument is fundamentally nonsensical.

The wanderer contrasts the watch with the trees and concludes that the watch is designed. We are left to assume that the trees are not designed (if not, what property of each is being contrasted?). But then (???) happens, and we conclude that trees (and indeed all of nature) are designed.

So a premise is being contradicted, but this is not a reductio ad absurdum argument.

xianghua · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
Thank you. But what is difference between words "argument" and "proof"?

in this case there isnt

Bungle_Bear · Jun 12, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Why not? Can't believe your own eyes?

If you know what an assertion is you'll know why you can't just bandy them round.

You mean like a self-replicating motor requires a designer is a logical conclusion that flows from the actual observation and investigation. To assume otherwise mean the burden is shifted.

You made the assertion, so it is your place to support it. You are trying to shift the burden to me simply because you cannot support it.

Now you must prove naturedidit absent a designer.

No, I don't have to prove it. If I'd made that claim I would have to support it, but I didn't make that claim.

If there are two options (nature vs intelligence) then one must go, it must be falsified. In this case, nature is falsified and intelligence advances.

How has nature been falsified? Ah yes, you made an assertion.

Tayla · Oct 1, 2017

Speedwell said:
Functional complexity in itself is not evidence of design.

Why do we have to choose? Can't something both evolve randomly and be designed? After all, consider the randomness inherent in the quantum mechanics wavefunction. I propose it is not random at all. Rather, an intelligent living non-material (spiritual) entity chooses, always working within the probability requirements of the wavefunction.

quatona · Oct 2, 2017

xianghua said:
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 have 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 that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall 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.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Just for clarification: Would you call a whale a "self replicating fountain"?

Speedwell · Oct 2, 2017

jesus316 said:
Why do we have to choose? Can't something both evolve randomly and be designed? After all, consider the randomness inherent in the quantum mechanics wavefunction. I propose it is not random at all. Rather, an intelligent living non-material (spiritual) entity chooses, always working within the probability requirements of the wavefunction.

Nothing wrong with that. It is possible to suppose that evolution functions as science says it does, but still believe that it is still the creature of divine providence. There are various ways to do this, depending on your metaphysics, but it will take you away from creationism or ID. The real problem with creationism is that it claims that evolution denies the existence of God.

xianghua · Oct 3, 2017

quatona said:
Just for clarification: Would you call a whale a "self replicating fountain"?

if a part of a whale can spray water, it can be a kind of.

the self replicating watch argument

Newbie

Whoot!

Newbie

Newbie

Whoot!

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Person

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency