the self replicating watch argument

[tas8831]

I assume you are talking about a flagellum ("spinning motor" is a bit of an exaggeration) and yes, humans make similar devices which turn on bearings, but so what? That "spinning" motion is not in itself evidence of design. If the device gives evidence of being manufactured by humans then it may be possible to conclude that it was designed. Otherwise it may not be possible to come to a conclusion. One can't conclude design merely from complexity and functional organization.

When are you going to get it? When are you going to learn how design is detected in an object?

He is still making the same sorts of arguments today (Oct. 3), so...

 

[tas8831]

Ah yes...I see now...you confused God with a "thing" (which by nature is part of the creation). Are you a materialist? I ask because it usually only they who make this category error.

By defining your vision of God as being outside of nature you are merely engaging in the fallacy of special pleading. Supernaturalists make such errors by the boatload.

 

[tas8831]

God is not a thing, He is the maker of all that is. It was all His idea. He is the source.

Assertions, special pleading, question begging.


There are nearly 20 philosophical lines of reasoning that conclude there must be a God[/QUOTE]

But no actual, you know, evidence?

Then why should anyone care?

 

[tas8831]

Just the presence of definite immutable laws and principles being in place that govern matter/energy that the materiality must follow and conform to implicates the necessity for intelligence. Simply put governing laws do not create or develop themselves.

wow - "definite immutable laws and principles being in place that govern matter/energy that the materiality must follow and conform to implicates the necessity for intelligence."

How long did you claim to have been self-teaching science to yourself?

 

[tas8831]

Yes and may have required a designer who made sure this was encoded into the genetic material

Then provide evidence that this may be so and stop the burden shifting.

 

[tas8831]

Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?

I see that despite your claimed 3 decades reading science and doing lab tech work, you are still gullible enough to accept the claims of the likes of Meyer and Dembski at face value.

Please show us all just 1 example of an "ID scientist" re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA; that they were the ' first to point out'.

I can guarantee that you cannot do this.

 

[tas8831]

Same with alleged "Junk DNA" being full of function and purpose (they were not "re-discovering" anything), they being Ph.D.s and University and Research professors were laughed at...everyone knew the Junk was a nearly purposeless thowback...but NOW they are discovering the truth of those claims (see the ENCODE project for one which is a consortium of 450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists).

That is absurd ID propaganda, and you fell for it.

And hawking ENCODE to boot - to be fair, this post was written a few months before I proved you wrong on that, but still, the evidence I posted (from ENCODE people themselves!) has been available for years.

But you choose to gobble up and regurgi-post the propaganda.

I also like how creationists always seem to embellish the credentials of whomever's wares they are hawking - "450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists)" - what makes them 'world class' - that they happen to be in labs that are part of a consortium? Or that their work was over-sold and misrepresented by ID creationists?

 

[tas8831]

Tanj allow me to present one example of the effect of selective exclusion on the career of a legitimate scientist.

Biologist/Geneticist Dr. Richard Sternberg who has a Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University, and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University, presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, and a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian in D.C.).


2001-2007, staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information
2001-2007 Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History while from 2001-2004, he also served as Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and served on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of General Systems.
1999, Visiting Associate Professor of Biology at Northern Michigan University, while from 1999-2001 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History.

He has previously been published in many Peer Reviewd Journals such as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, as well as the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

As soon as he started reporting genetic findings that appear to agree with and/or support the perspectives of some IDers he was blackballed (McCarthyism in pedagoguery) and cannot get any of his research published in any of these.

And there you go, buying the propaganda. Got all that from "Expelled" did you?

Maybe if Sternberg hadn't used his parting shot as editor of a systematics journal to shepherd Meyer's hackneyed nonsense that had no relevance to the journal's goals into print, he might not have gotten what he deserved. And then to lie about his 'treatment'? Waaaa - they took my keys away! (just like they did or everyone in his area since they were doing construction)...

Give it a rest.

 

[tas8831]

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)

"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

Birney admitted - in a blog post, of all places, in which he was pretending to interview himself - that the 80% was basically used to impress the rubes

ENCODE: My own thoughts - Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?

A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.​

Another ENCODE researcher also indicated that the real, evidence-based number is much lower:

Max Libbrecht on ENCODE’s results regarding junk DNA. « Genomicron

"In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy....
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. ..."



Get up to speed, pshun. This information was also available when you made this post.

 

[tas8831]

I'm shocked that you have a link to this nonsense as your signature. I should think that the purveyor of this failed and silly argument would maybe be... embarrassed...

 

[tas8831]

"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

Birney admitted - in a blog post, of all places, in which he was pretending to interview himself - that the 80% was basically used to impress the rubes

ENCODE: My own thoughts - Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?

A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.​

Another ENCODE researcher also indicated that the real, evidence-based number is much lower:

Max Libbrecht on ENCODE’s results regarding junk DNA. « Genomicron

"In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy....
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. ..."



Get up to speed, pshun. This information was also available when you made this post.

I see the trend again...

Anyone else see it?

Note the date!

 

[Ophiolite]

Back on the subject of watches, I recently bought a second hand watch, but its not very useful. All it's got is a second hand.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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 (or a robot) 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.

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

No, the watchmaker argument is not valid. It starts out by saying that we can recognize a designed watch by contrasting it with nature, strongly implying that nature is not designed. But then it attempts to conclude that nature actually is designed by God. The argument is thoroughly incoherent.

 

[tas8831]

No, the watchmaker argument is not valid. It starts out by saying that we can recognize a designed watch by contrasting it with nature, strongly implying that nature is not designed. But then it attempts to conclude that nature actually is designed by God. The argument is thoroughly incoherent.

I'd never looked at it that way - excellent point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

He is still making the same sorts of arguments today (Oct. 3), so...

He's stuck with that argument. ID people have nothing else.

 

[xianghua]

No, the watchmaker argument is not valid. It starts out by saying that we can recognize a designed watch by contrasting it with nature, strongly implying that nature is not designed. But then it attempts to conclude that nature actually is designed by God. The argument is thoroughly incoherent.

are you saying that a self replicating watch doesnt need a designer?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

are you saying that a self replicating watch doesnt need a designer?

1.) Self-replicating watches don't exist
2.) I have refuted the Watchmaker Argument

 

[xianghua]

1.) Self-replicating watches don't exist

so if they were existed you will conclude design or not?

2.) I have refuted the Watchmaker Argument

how actually?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

so if they were existed you will conclude design or not?

Just make one and I'll concede it's designed.

how actually?

Once again, the hypothetical person who finds the watch deduces that it is designed by contrasting it with nature, which is tacitly assumed to not be designed. And yet the goal of the argument is to prove that nature is designed. It is totally self refuting.