the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

He'ld have a fairly strong case, considering there's objective evidence supporting that.

Science thinks early man is post flood man. For some later post flood man, yes there of course was DNA as ours. That is not early man. That is just early present state man. Noah and Adam were former nature man. No DNA or remain is known for them.

 

[dad]

I also explained how the fossil record, while among the weakest evidence for evolution, it is still strong evidence. It's just that the other evidence for evolution, like genetics, is even stronger.

In your mind, maybe.

When you have a strong guy and then some other guys who are stronger still, it's perfectly okay to say that among those strong men, that first strong guy is the weakest.

Skyscrapers are big, but among a bunch of big skyscrapers, there's going to be one that is going to be the smallest among them.

See?

Yes, you claim there is genetic evidence of some sort that you can't cohesively elucidate. There actually is none.

Also, we don't need genes from early life, to demonstrate common ancestry.
Just like we don't need genes from your parents, to determine that you and your siblings are biological siblings. We only need a DNA sample of you and your siblings. From there, we can infer that you share biological parents.

Wrong. Only if the nature was always the same, so that therefore the genetics would work the very same would that possibly be somewhat true. You do not know that it was. Therefore when you sit here twiddling around with present DNA pretending it represents DNA from an unknown time and nature, that is religion. No basis in fact whatsoever.

Yes, it's very clear that your beliefs are based on your preferences, instead of actual evidence.

It is clear your so called actual evidence is anything but evidence, but instead pure belief.

 

[dad]

And yet, it's the theories of science that make your pc work - not prayer or reading scripture.

Name one origin theory that makes a computer work. What, does your laptop have 'Darwin inside' stamped on it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so? as i said: even if one instance will be different we can just solve it by convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution (dolphin and shark for instance). so there is no difference between cars tree and animals tree.

Dolphin and shark?

You just can't help but to say dumb things on this subject, can you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science thinks early man is post flood man. For some later post flood man, yes there of course was DNA as ours. That is not early man. That is just early present state man. Noah and Adam were former nature man. No DNA or remain is known for them.

The flood didn't happen. It is just a myth.

Regardless of what you believe in your variation of "last thursdayism".

 

[DogmaHunter]

In your mind, maybe.

No, I explained it on this forum in this very thread. You can click the arrows next to the names in the quotes of this conversation. You'll eventually bump into it.

In fact, you just quoted it no more then 2 posts ago.

Yes, you claim there is genetic evidence of some sort that you can't cohesively elucidate.

Except that we can. We do it all the time.
No matter what you believe

There actually is none.

The guy who got forced by court ruling to pay for alimentation after a DNA test poved that the kid is his actual kid, disagrees.

Wrong

No, correct. Your misunderstanding and ignorance notwithstanding, off course.

Only if the nature was always the same, so that therefore the genetics would work the very same would that possibly be somewhat true.

Last thursdayism. Again.

 

[dad]

ok, but again: the majority of animals arent so big.

There are enough big ones to require more space than the ark had. So you are faced with the problem of either no possibility all modern and extinct animals/birds/bugs could have fit on the ark, or the possibility that only a relative few were on the ark and considered kinds, and that the millions of species alive and in the fossil record evolved since that time, 4500 years ago. Mammoths, elephants, and giaffes alone would probably take a lot of the space. I mean imagine a condo that was 1000 sq feet. Now try to stick two grown mammoths and a few of each species of modern elephants in there! Add a few big giraffes. Not gong to happen. The estimate was that we only had about 1000,000 sq feet to work with. That is only 100 of those condos. Stick in a few of the birds with a 27 foot wing area. Stick in 33 species of tigers at 2 each.

so its not realy a problem. also remember that we are talking about land vertebrate in general. the number of families among land vertebrate is about 400-600 families if i remember right.

The link I gave cited millions of land animals. (millions more that are now extinct) How do you get those in 100 condos?

so even if we multiply it by 10 or more we will get about no more then 10,000 original kinds. and in this case (that is more close to reality) we will have about 10 square foot per animal.

If the link I posted said there was 6 to 8 million land animal species, that is not 10,000.

Here is the math...we need rapid evolving since the flood. That cannot happen in a short time in this nature. The different state past is the best and simplest explanation.

 

[dad]

The flood didn't happen. It is just a myth..

Unsupported belief noted.

 

[dad]

No, I explained it on this forum in this very thread. You can click the arrows next to the names in the quotes of this conversation. You'll eventually bump into it.

You made a bald statement of faith that you think our present genetics (therefore our present nature and laws) existed also in the far past on earth. That has no support and the bible indicates otherwise.

Except that we can. We do it all the time.
No matter what you believe

Try posting your so called proof that the same DNA existed for Adam as now. You do not, have not, and cannot.

The guy who got forced by court ruling to pay for alimentation after a DNA test poved that the kid is his actual kid, disagrees.

If your kid was Noah or Adam you might have a point. Instead you have religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Name one origin theory that makes a computer work.

The technologies inside a computer are directly dependend on theories of physics. The same theories that inform us of radioactivity, radioactive decay etc and which allows us to date things.

What, does your laptop have 'Darwin inside' stamped on it?

No, my computer is not a practical application of biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unsupported belief noted.

Belief: to accept a claim as correct.

The claim in this case, is "a global flood happened".

The evidence for this claim, is non-existant.

My stance: I don't believe said claim, since there is no evidence to support it.

The one with the "unsupported belief", in other words, is YOU.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You made a bald statement of faith that you think our present genetics (therefore our present nature and laws) existed also in the far past on earth. That has no support and the bible indicates otherwise.

Arguing for a variation of "Last thursdayism", again.

Try posting your so called proof that the same DNA existed for Adam as now. You do not, have not, and cannot.

I'm not even claiming this "adam" existed. That would be you again.

If your kid was Noah or Adam you might have a point. Instead you have religion.

That DNA allows us to determine relationships, is a fact.

 

[pitabread]

interesting try but different from reality. you should try it with most traits and you will get a single tree that in most case will fit with other trees.

Uh, that's what I've been doing, but that's not what is occurring. As I've posted, even adding a single new characteristic has the potential to radically re-shape the tree. Which occurred when I added drive type as a characteristic, which was the post you quoted.

As another example here are two more trees. The first based solely on engine and fuel characteristics. The second based on physical body design and features. The two trees are completely different.

When I calculate a P-value for these trees, the result is P of ~1. This means there is no correlation between the two trees.

It's also worth noting that your own attempts to sort vehicles by physical size don't bear out in any of the results I've calculated. While I have yet to include gross physical size as a measurement, the trees I've computed so far show little convergence based on size. Just the varied locations of vehicles like the small cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs confirm that.

What I'm finding is that vehicle characteristics appear to be highly independent of each other. Which makes sense given these are manufactured objects that don't have hereditary constraints.

its also important to note that we find such contradictions in the animal tree too. depend which traits\genes you choose. many trees change all the time.

You keep flip-flopping with your arguments here. When people point to convergence with respect to phylogenetic trees of biological organisms, you claim the same holds true for designed objects. When shown that it doesn't hold true for designed objects, you turn around and try to argue it doesn't hold true for biological organisms.

Yes, there are differences in phylogenetic trees based on biology but what really matters is the level of statistical significance between them. Even if trees show differences they can still show high levels of statistical correlation. And it's statistical correlation that really matters.

TalkOrigins has some further discussion here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees

 

[dad]

The technologies inside a computer are directly dependend on theories of physics. The same theories that inform us of radioactivity, radioactive decay etc and which allows us to date things.



No, my computer is not a practical application of biology.

False.

Nothing about a computer depends on a same nature in the past. Science works with what we have now. Your rigid belief that we always did and will have the temporary present nature/laws is totally unfounded. Nothing in any computer is remotely related to your religion.

 

[dad]

Belief: to accept a claim as correct.

The claim in this case, is "a global flood happened".

No the claim was that the flood did not happen. That is a belief. Nothing more.

The evidence for this claim, is non-existant.

The evidence for the bible permeates the planet, history, and people's lives. You are in no position to call it non existent.

My stance: I don't believe said claim, since there is no evidence to support it.

Plenty of evidence, none you can fit in your little religious box..not my problem.

 

[dad]

I'm not even claiming this "adam" existed.

Nor can science claim he existed, or did not exist, or that he had present nature genes. So what CAN you claim?

That DNA allows us to determine relationships, is a fact.

And red lights determine when traffic stops. What has that got to do with the far past? You need to make some connection. Hint: prove that a same nature existed, and that therefore man would have had the same genetic make up.

We don't really need statements of faith, just the goods.

 

[Speedwell]

Nor can science claim he existed, or did not exist, or that he had present nature genes. So what CAN you claim?

And red lights determine when traffic stops. What has that got to do with the far past? You need to make some connection. Hint: prove that a same nature existed, and that therefore man would have had the same genetic make up.

We don't really need statements of faith, just the goods.

What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It isn't just an assumption.

 

[bhsmte]

What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It isn't just an assumption.

Good luck with that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

there is a difference between a muscle cell and other types of cell. its not simple as you think. even if you can take some proteins from other types of cells you will need new parts.

1. you seem to fail in understanding that multicellular organism cells all contain the same DNA, and that the difference between a muscle cell and a skin cell is gene expression, not gene presence. You are acting as if cells within multicellular organisms evolve independently, when this is not the case.
2. The proteins that allow muscle cells to be specialized for movement have other purposes in other cell types, meaning that the only difference between a muscle cell and other cell types in terms of these proteins is how much is produced. Mutations that result in additional copies of genes being produced by themselves can cause overproduction of proteins in specific cell types, making this type of specialization one of the fastest in terms of mutations. How liver cells evolved is similar; all cells have the capacity to break down some toxins that enter them; liver cells are filled to the brim with the organelle that performs this function, which is why they are so good at this.

you cant just mix parts from other systems and get a new motion system.

I can't think of a single human cell that actually has components that no other cell type does. Think of the cells as being like cookies. If I add fewer eggs to one batch than another, the batch with fewer eggs will be crunchier. Both batches are still cookies, but their properties aren't 100% identical.

i gave a simple example like a compass. you cant make it move like a watch by adding just a single part or by mixing existing parts in the compass.

Machines don't all work the same way or share functions, but cells do. Any given cell will have more similarities with another random cell than differences, but you can't say the same of machines. This is part of why machines and cells are not comparable; you act as if the compass and the watch should be similar devices, but the freaking compass doesn't even have a power source. They just visually look similar to you, so you think it's a valid comparison, but a compass and a watch share 0 functions with each other. You can't find 2 cells on this planet that share 0 functions with each other, and you certainly won't find anything close to that within your own body.

 

[dad]

What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It isn't just an assumption.

What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists think they are are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It is just an assumption, and has no basis in fact whatsoever.