the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

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. .

God's machines are higher than man's machines, yet both can be seen right away by intelligent beings to have been created.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

LOL! I have. I know it's not just an assumption.

 

[dad]

LOL! I have. I know it's not just an assumption.

Me too. I know it is.

 

[Speedwell]

Me too. I know it is.

Except that you know nothing of the scientific evidence behind the conviction that the physical laws have not changed. All you know is that they must have changed or your interpretation of Genesis would be nonsense.

 

[dad]

Except that you know nothing of the scientific evidence behind the conviction that the physical laws have not changed.

Except I do. There is none.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God's machines are higher than man's machines, yet both can be seen right away by intelligent beings to have been created.

Nah, humans are structurally horrible, which is why we are so prone to back problems. Heck, our feet shouldn't even have so many bones in them, because it's a rigid structure. As a result of having 26 bones instead, the arches of our feet can easily wear down, resulting in agony. A freaking ostrich has a "more intelligent foot and ankle design" than we do.

That's part of why design isn't an obvious aspect of life on the planet; there are inconsistencies in the problems. When designing a machine, an individual would make consistent errors, not fix it in some machines or add more to ones made later on. Evolution was left to work with our ancestors that had feet like hands, so the excess bones make sense in that context.

 

[dad]

Nah, humans are structurally horrible, which is why we are so prone to back problems. Heck, our feet shouldn't even have so many bones in them, because it's a rigid structure. As a result of having 26 bones instead, the arches of our feet can easily wear down, resulting in agony. A freaking ostrich has a "more intelligent foot and ankle design" than we do.

Perhaps the current devolved condition of man is less than originally designed.

That's part of why design isn't an obvious aspect of life on the planet; there are inconsistencies in the problems.

You are straining at nats and swallowing a camel there.

When designing a machine, an individual would make consistent errors, not fix it in some machines or add more to ones made later on. Evolution was left to work with our ancestors that had feet like hands, so the excess bones make sense in that context.

We do not know what our ancestors looked like. As much sense as it might make to you to call apes and monkeys ancestors that is a belief only.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Perhaps the current devolved condition of man is less than originally designed.

There's no logical reason for us to degrade into having excess bones in the feet. Even if you wanted to claim it was a curse, it is so specific and strange that I'd demand an explanation of the logic behind that.

You are straining at nats and swallowing a camel there.

I have no idea what this means.

We do not know what our ancestors looked like.

http://kanisearlyhuman.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/0/6/25066348/4512420.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...an_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/09/39/d10939ce91527607459ea8216e06d1fb.jpg

As much sense as it might make to you to call apes and monkeys ancestors that is a belief only.

Your dismissal without any argument or evidence behind it is noted, though it holds no weight.

Also, this is coming from the guy that had to internally acknowledge that a bird with a brain smaller than its eye has better feet than humans do, and could only reconcile it with the unevidenced assumption that human feet must have been better at some point.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

You have said many times that we can just claim convergence, but you fail to mention that this has been answered many times. Yes, there are datapoints that do not fit as they should in the nested hierarchy of life, but the overwhelming statistical evidence indicates that the trees we are finding are real. A clean nested hierarchy can be messed up by convergencies, genes that vary rapidly, patterns deteriorating into randomness in years, and other things. But in spite of this, we consistently find strong statistical significance.

You make a big deal of your vehicle tree with three "taxa": cars, vans and trucks. Do you not realize how trivial a tree with three taxa is? (The stem at the bottom of your tree means nothing, so we deal with this as an unrooted tree with 3 taxa.) It turns out there is only one way to arrange an unrooted tree with 3 taxa. You can mirror image it, for instance, or move the line that says cars over to the other side, but those are just cosmetic changes. The tree is still mathematically the same. So finding evidence for this "nested hierarchy" is like flipping a trick coin with heads on both sides and standing back in amazement when in comes up heads. Your odds with that trick coin are the same as the odds for an evaluation of those 3 taxa yielding your tree, 100%! There is only one unrooted tree you can build with three taxa.

The problem is that each of your taxa is quite varied on many parameters. And when you try to subdivide down to individual "species" of vehicles, you find no way to build a consistent nested hierarchy. Pitabread has done an excellent job of showing how varied the trees of vehicles can be when looking at different sets of criteria. As he pointed out, the trees are coming out with P aprox. equal to 1, which means there is a 100% chance that the cladogram shown is not reliably correct. Contrast that with the multiple studies of living organisms, which regularly yield P<.01 (less than 1% chance that they are not reliably correct), which is quite good for statistical studies.

And no, adding more criteria will not fix your problem. As we have explained, there are multiple ways to divide up cars, and they are not based on a fixed hierarchy. The more independent variables you add, the more hopelessly lost you will be at finding a single correct nested hierarchy for cars.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Except I do. There is none.

If physics was completely different millions of years ago, why is it that the starlight, which left the stars millions of years ago, arrives looking like it was generated with the same physics as light generated today?

 

[Heissonear]

You have said many times that we can just claim convergence, but you fail to mention that this has been answered many times. Yes, there are datapoints that do not fit as they should in the nested hierarchy of life, but the overwhelming statistical evidence indicates that the trees we are finding are real. A clean nested hierarchy can be messed up by convergencies, genes that vary rapidly, patterns deteriorating into randomness in years, and other things. But in spite of this, we consistently find strong statistical significance.

You make a big deal of your vehicle tree with three "taxa": cars, vans and trucks. Do you not realize how trivial a tree with three taxa is? (The stem at the bottom of your tree means nothing, so we deal with this as an unrooted tree with 3 taxa.) It turns out there is only one way to arrange an unrooted tree with 3 taxa. You can mirror image it, for instance, or move the line that says cars over to the other side, but those are just cosmetic changes. The tree is still mathematically the same. So finding evidence for this "nested hierarchy" is like flipping a trick coin with heads on both sides and standing back in amazement when in comes up heads. Your odds with that trick coin are the same as the odds for an evaluation of those 3 taxa yielding your tree, 100%! There is only one unrooted tree you can build with three taxa.

The problem is that each of your taxa is quite varied on many parameters. And when you try to subdivide down to individual "species" of vehicles, you find no way to build a consistent nested hierarchy. Pitabread has done an excellent job of showing how varied the trees of vehicles can be when looking at different sets of criteria. As he pointed out, the trees are coming out with P aprox. equal to 1, which means there is a 100% chance that the cladogram shown is not reliably correct. Contrast that with the multiple studies of living organisms, which regularly yield P<.01 (less than 1% chance that they are not reliably correct), which is quite good for statistical studies.

And no, adding more criteria will not fix your problem. As we have explained, there are multiple ways to divide up cars, and they are not based on a fixed hierarchy. The more independent variables you add, the more hopelessly lost you will be at finding a single correct nested hierarchy for cars.

Chit-chat. Mere words.

It takes Intelligence to make a cell phone and spreadsheet programes.

A look at the complexity within a creature, even the origin biochemical pathways required to make DNA, purely show even higher Intelligence. Nature is dump, only abiding as processes.

Chit-chat does not set aside Intelligence required to many created things around us. Obvious ocjects displaying Intelligence to come about.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is that each of your taxa is quite varied on many parameters. And when you try to subdivide down to individual "species" of vehicles, you find no way to build a consistent nested hierarchy. Pitabread has done an excellent job of showing how varied the trees of vehicles can be when looking at different sets of criteria.

Just to add further example of this, I refined my data set a bit more. I opted to simplify the number of vehicle "taxa" and allowed for polymorphic characteristics. Thus if a vehicle model offers different engine types, I now capture that data accordingly by including all options. This cleans up the taxa listing and I think makes more a more accurate data set.

Here is the resultant tree based on 14 characteristics and 25 vehicles:

Then as a test, I created two additional trees each based on half of the original characters (7 each).

End result is once again two completely different trees with no statistical convergence with respect to either the original tree or each other.

I think this puts to bed the idea that phylogenetic trees based on designed objects with have convergent trees. The results I'm getting are the polar opposite of that.

 

[pitabread]

A look at the complexity within a creature, even the origin biochemical pathways required to make DNA, purely show even higher Intelligence.

Complexity is a poor indicator of intelligent design given the number of complex outputs that result from non-intelligent sources. Unless you believe things like weather patterns or tidal flows are a result of deliberate, intelligent design. Do you?

 

[dad]

There's no logical reason for us to degrade into having excess bones in the feet. Even if you wanted to claim it was a curse, it is so specific and strange that I'd demand an explanation of the logic behind that.

Why would we live 10 times less now? It seems we are not getting better physically. There are factors we do not know about. Perhaps the effect of gravity was less before so the feet were fine...etc. Who knows?

http://kanisearlyhuman.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/0/6/25066348/4512420.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...an_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/09/39/d10939ce91527607459ea8216e06d1fb.jpg

Artist conceptions of post flood man. That does not tell us what pre present nature man looked like. As you may or may not be aware, man could not leave remains such as fossils or bones in the former times most probably. From dust to dust.

 

[dad]

Complexity is a poor indicator of intelligent design given the number of complex outputs that result from non-intelligent sources. Unless you believe things like weather patterns or tidal flows are a result of deliberate, intelligent design. Do you?

Of course. There are four angels in charge of nature.

 

[dad]

If physics was completely different millions of years ago,

Not millions...4400 years ago. And we are talking about on earth.

why is it that the starlight, which left the stars millions of years ago, arrives looking like it was generated with the same physics as light generated today?

If no time as we know it existed in deep space, then there is no millions of years. We could not say how much time was involved getting the light to our area here.

Once it gets here it obeys our laws. Operates in our time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course. There are four angels in charge of nature.

I see. So meteorologists are people that are experts on angelology and thus are good at predicting what angels will do next?

I don't think so.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We could not say how much time was involved getting the light to our area here.

I could.

 

[Skreeper]

Of course. There are four angels in charge of nature.

So there IS someone we can blame for all the terrible weather. Good to know.

 

[xianghua]

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

again: they are talking about species, not families. its a huge different. also most of those animals are insects or marine animals. so we only need to check for land vertebrates. means the number of reptiles, mammals and birds families. this number is less then 1000 families (again: not species) so we only need to deal with about 1000 different original kinds.