the self replicating watch argument

[Bungle_Bear]

lets say that all traits is comparable with what we find in a living creature.

So we find genetic evidence of evolution? Then there is no reason to conclude design.

Or are you trying to say that all living creatures move, feed, replicate etc in the same way? If that's the case then it's no wonder you have such problems understanding why your analogy makes zero sense.

 

[Speedwell]

im still not sure what are you refer to (maby because my english but im not sure). so what if he compare it with a rock? he still conclude design because the watch complexity. and therefore conclude the same for a living creature.

Exept that complexity is not evidence of design.

Paley said,

"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”

Here, the very first criteria Paley established to detect design was indication of contrivance--what we have been calling evidence of manufacture. Without that, design cannot be concluded.

And Paley was wrong. Indication of contrivance, evidence of manufacture has not been detected in nature.

 

[durangodawood]

....And Paley was wrong. Indication of contrivance, evidence of manufacture has not been detected in nature.

Thats the bottom line.

Natural and man made form demonstrate complexity.

But only man made forms have strong evidence to indicate a designer / manufacturer.

 

[xianghua]

Exept that complexity is not evidence of design.

Paley said,

"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”

Here, the very first criteria Paley established to detect design was indication of contrivance--what we have been calling evidence of manufacture. Without that, design cannot be concluded.

And Paley was wrong. Indication of contrivance, evidence of manufacture has not been detected in nature.

so if you will find a robot without evidence of manufacture you will not conclude design?

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will find a robot without evidence of manufacture you will not conclude design?

That is correct. I would not be able to come to a conclusion about design one way or the other without evidence of manufacture, or "indication of contrivance" as Paley calls it.

 

[quatona]

so if you will find a robot without evidence of manufacture you will not conclude design?

Yes, that´s exactly the criteria by which we tell a robot from a human, or any other designed object from a natural object. Not complexity or rarity or whatever.

 

[46AND2]

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 natural 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

If you start with the assumption that the great designer designed all things, then any attempt to identify that which is designed is utterly useless, because you have no examples of something "not designed" with which to compare it.

Therefore, you cannot use the argument of apparent design as evidence of your great designer, because literally everything counts as evidence. If everything counts as evidence, nothing is evidence.

So, you then have to come up with some other mechanism to show that your great designer designed everything. Demonstrating that such a being can even exist would be a good start.

 

[46AND2]

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 natural 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

For an example of my previous post: if it is assumed that god designed everything, then it is assumed that he created a reality in which when 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine at the right temperature, it becomes water. Your flagella argument is NO different than if you had used water, instead. Like I said, your position necessitates literally EVERYTHING is support for your assumption.

But it explains nothing because there is nothing to distinguish "designed water" from "not-designed water."

 

[xianghua]

If you start with the assumption that the great designer designed all things, then any attempt to identify that which is designed is utterly useless, because you have no examples of something "not designed" with which to compare it.

Therefore, you cannot use the argument of apparent design as evidence of your great designer, because literally everything counts as evidence. If everything counts as evidence, nothing is evidence.

So, you then have to come up with some other mechanism to show that your great designer designed everything. Demonstrating that such a being can even exist would be a good start.

so how you detect design when you see a watch?

 

[Speedwell]

so how you detect design when you see a watch?

Because it looks like it was manufactured, not grown naturally.

 

[xianghua]

Because it looks like it was manufactured, not grown naturally.

this object also looks manufactured:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

 

[Speedwell]

this object also looks manufactured:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

That's just a schematic drawing. Show us a picture of what the flagellum actually looks like, then you can point out the parts of it which suggest to you that it was manufactured--you know, tool and mold marks, refined and man-made materials, etc..

 

[Bungle_Bear]

this object also looks manufactured:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

Why? What are the indicators of a manufacturing process?

 

[xianghua]

That's just a schematic drawing. Show us a picture of what the flagellum actually looks like, then you can point out the parts of it which suggest to you that it was manufactured--you know, tool and mold marks, refined and man-made materials, etc..

here is a real time image of the flagellum:

look manufactured to me. (image from Sept 25 Biochemical Networks Chemotaxis and Motility in E. coli Examples of Biochemical and Genetic Networks Background Chemotaxis- signal transduction. - ppt download).

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[Bungle_Bear]

here is a real time image of the flagellum:

look manufactured to me. (image from Sept 25 Biochemical Networks Chemotaxis and Motility in E. coli Examples of Biochemical and Genetic Networks Background Chemotaxis- signal transduction. - ppt download).

Really? Why? What are the tell-tale signs of manufacture? Are there tool marks? A serial number?

 

[46AND2]

so how you detect design when you see a watch?

Um..because you start with the assumption/knowledge that watches are designed...we've OBSERVED them being designed.

 

[46AND2]

here is a real time image of the flagellum:

look manufactured to me. (image from Sept 25 Biochemical Networks Chemotaxis and Motility in E. coli Examples of Biochemical and Genetic Networks Background Chemotaxis- signal transduction. - ppt download).

Doesn't matter if it looks designed to you. You think ALL things are designed. Therefore, ALL things will look designed to you. How something LOOKS TO YOU, is an utterly specious argument.

 

[xianghua]

Doesn't matter if it looks designed to you. You think ALL things are designed. Therefore, ALL things will look designed to you. How something LOOKS TO YOU, is an utterly specious argument.

so a spinning motor doesnt look designed to you?

 

[bhsmte]

so a spinning motor doesnt look designed to you?

As he said, it is irrelevant.