the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

Dad, you have not explained why the basic categories of life fit into a nested pattern, whereas other natural objects such as minerals and mountains do not do this.

Yes I have. God created them that way, and the gift of evolving was part of it, especially in the former nature when most of the changes and adapting/evolving happened.

ok you accept evolution at a family level and admit it can be responsible for the nested hierarchy at the family level. How do you explain that all of life fits this pattern, that there is a tree of the families of life that shows a nested hierarchy? See figure 1 here. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics

I think you see the pattern whether it exists or not. You stick unrelated fossils together and make a pattern in your mind that makes them kin.

You can't be serious. You cut off the words following that gave you a few examples:

So what all was in the horse family? Were the horse, zebra, and donkey all in that family? How about the extinct merychippus, mesahippus, and eohippus, all of which have left abundant fossils after the KT boundary? Did these all descend from one pair on the ark?
​

Can you actually address this please?

I would suspect that all those critters were post flood. I suspect that the whole period of the Cenozoic I think it was you call it...when the creatures you cite lived...was mere centuries. Possibly the time after the flood when nature was still different. That would mean no radioactive decay dates are possible, and no old age dates based on how long you think it would take to evolve. No dates of how long you think layers would need to form..based on the present nature.

So what I suspect we have with your horse like animals is creatures in that few centuries that started to or could fossilize. There also, in this scenario have been real horses running around or being ridden by man!

In other words, even though the flood may have been around the KT layer...the nature change may be much higher in the geo column!

​

Ok 65 million years of the geologic column is 4500 years in Dad years.

Don't blame me for imaginary millions of years. I go by real time.

And yet the fossil record shows horse evolution took tens of millions of years in geologic years. How many years did it take in Dad years?

THAT is you mistake, Diagnosis complete. Try to prove the dates.

if the flood was at the kt boundary, than over 90% of the fossil record was before the flood. So why is it that we have an abundance of fossils before the flood, most of which are very different from modern life?

In other words, a lot of creatures lived on the wonderful world also before the flood. This is news? Of course they would be different! The evidence mounts!

remember that we can use radiometric dating.

After you prove there was the present state/nature existing then...yes you can. That will never happen though.

In addition we have evidence such as the great layers of rock, the many volcanoes, the distance traveled by the continents, and ice layers. The kt boundary was formed long ago.

Continental drift was rapid in that former nature, volcanic activity resulted of course also, and in that former nature, we cannot impose today's ice layering realities!

These all were things happening in the former nature!

Amazing.

 

[dad]

Again, using magic in an science debate is not rational and an auto-loss.

Creation was magic as far as poor little science goes.

 

[dad]

This was a parody argument. It's quite concerning that you don't seem to realise that.



You, without evidence, try to dismiss the big bang theory as a fable when it's a testable hypothesis tells us more about you than it does the hypothesis.

You thinking it is more than a juicy fable tells us about you.

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a testable hypothesis which fits actual evidence and a fable.

Show the test for your fable then. I wasn't born last night.

The big bang theory has evidence behind it. See, e.g., Big Bang | COSMOS

False. TOTAL religion and belief.

There are plenty of ways in which the hypothesis is falsifiable. E.g. if we found distant supernovae with a blueshift.

You do not know how distant any star is. Your religion tells stories.

I understand that creationists often want to portray scientific theories as 'fables' in an attempt to make them match the level of support of their own religious beliefs. However, five seconds on Google easily shows that this is wrong.

False. That is why you posted nothing. You just believe real hard.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You thinking it is more than a juicy fable tells us about you.

Yes, it shows that I understand that it's a theory backed by evidence and with testable predictions. Which I'm happy for anyone to know about me.

Show the test for your fable then. I wasn't born last night.

I gave the test in the previous post which you have just ignored. A distant supernova with a blue shift as an example. How is that not a test of the big bang theory?

False. TOTAL religion and belief.

I posted a link to the evidence. You have just claimed it as 'false' with no support or evidence for your claim at all. I have evidence for my side of the argument. You have none.

You do not know how distant any star is. Your religion tells stories.

Science is not a religion; it's the exact opposite. We know how distant stars are. See, e.g., here for a summary of the methods that are used. Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia If you feel that these methods are incorrect, then perhaps you can explain why you think that rather than just saying 'false' with no explanation or support for your dismissal.

False. That is why you posted nothing. You just believe real hard.

I gave the evidence to support my claims. You on the other hand have not been able to do so. All you have posted is an 'opinion' from an answer to a question where EVERY PART of the question is easily shown to be wrong.

So, your 'you posted nothing' is clearly wrong. And I leave that at that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: all those points fit with this image too (8 groups):

so where is the difference?

The difference is that your diagram was invented out of thin air.

 

[DogmaHunter]

wait. you already admit:

"If I walked into a parking lot containing a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, I could sort them into two groups."

so you can divide vehicles into groups. and then you can do the same for in group vehicles too and get a phylogenetic tree. in any case you will get a tree.

Not a phylogenetic tree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

last time: here it again with 8 "taxa":

View attachment 224149

as i said: no difference.

Except for the difference that your diagram was invented out of thing air, while the phylogenetic trees of biology are the result of rigorous study using a well defined and well tested objective method.

The difference is that the phylogenetic tree of biology is the OUTPUT of a process of study.
While your silly diagram is simply imposed to make an invalid and rather dishonest point.

 

[xianghua]

but when using different subsets of characteristics I got wildly different trees.

its true. but again its also true for creatures. about 1/3 of gorila genome give us a different tree. means many genes dont support the phylogenetic tree. now you will say that about 70% do support the tree but its the same with bicylce compare to a truck. most parts of a bicylce are more similar to another bicylce then to those of a truck.

 

[dad]

Yes, it shows that I understand that it's a theory backed by evidence and with testable predictions. Which I'm happy for anyone to know about me.

You claim to understand. If that makes you happier than demonstrating it, fine.

I gave the test in the previous post which you have just ignored. A distant supernova with a blue shift as an example. How is that not a test of the big bang theory?

How is it?

I posted a link to the evidence. You have just claimed it as 'false' with no support or evidence for your claim at all. I have evidence for my side of the argument. You have none.

What in the link exactly do you feel was relevant or more than religious doctrines? You would need to point that out, rather than spamming links.

Science is not a religion; it's the exact opposite.

It is a religion.

We know how distant stars are. See, e.g., here for a summary of the methods that are used. Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

No you do not. The distances all require time to be the same all over the universe. You do not know that it is. That makes them belief based.

If you feel that these methods are incorrect, then perhaps you can explain why you think that rather than just saying 'false' with no explanation or support for your dismissal.

Just did.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

You claim to understand. If that makes you happier than demonstrating it, fine.



How is it?

What in the link exactly do you feel was relevant or more than religious doctrines? You would need to point that out, rather than spamming links.


It is a religion.

No you do not. The distances all require time to be the same all over the universe. You do not know that it is. That makes them belief based.

Just did.

I've seen multiple people here give their own definitions for stuff like "kind", this is the first time I see someone redefining a word.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think you see the pattern whether it exists or not. You stick unrelated fossils together and make a pattern in your mind that makes them kin.

I think you are addressing this to the wrong person. Have you followed the debate between Xianghua and myself? This is indeed what Xianghua does, in fact admits that he does: stick unrelated vehicles together and make a pattern in his mind that makes them look the same as the kin shown in trees. His mistake is in assuming that scientists do what he does, just group things that make a pattern in our mind and declare victory. We have been trying to explain to him that this is not what scientists do. Rather they collect data and run complex analysis to understand the relationships. If the data does not make a statistically significant hierarchy they do not publish it as such.

The link I keep posting explains the analysis and links to primary sources with more information. What more does it take to get you to understand that science is not about making things a up? Will you and Xianghua repeatedly misrepresent what scientists do, regardless of the evidence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad,

I see, so you have no answer why the major categories of life all fit in a nested hierarchy while other natural things do not. You cannot simply ignore the part in italics and pretend you answered the question.

Yes I have. God created them that way, and the gift of evolving was part of it, especially in the former nature when most of the changes and adapting/evolving happened.

Again, you cannot simply ignore the part in italics and pretend you answered.

You say the evolution within a family explains the nested hierarchy we see within families of animals. Then God must have known that putting fungi and plants and all the phyla of the animal kingdom all in one big nested hierarchy must look like evolution. And yet for some reason your God chose to do that, while not putting other natural things in nested hierarchies.

And all you can do is evade the question.

I would suspect that all those critters were post flood. I suspect that the whole period of the Cenozoic I think it was you call it...when the creatures you cite lived...was mere centuries. Possibly the time after the flood when nature was still different. That would mean no radioactive decay dates are possible, and no old age dates based on how long you think it would take to evolve. No dates of how long you think layers would need to form..based on the present nature.

So what I suspect we have with your horse like animals is creatures in that few centuries that started to or could fossilize. There also, in this scenario have been real horses running around or being ridden by man!

In other words, even though the flood may have been around the KT layer...the nature change may be much higher in the geo column!

Wow, so this is your answer to the question of whether horses, zebras, and donkeys were all descended from a single ancestor on the ark!!!!

OK, you evade even this simple question. You won't tell us if you think they had a common ancestor. All you do is evade. Sad.

And you evade telling us if fossils that look like horses might be descended from the same pair of animals in the ark that modern horses descended from. All you can do is evade questions. Sad.

In other words, a lot of creatures lived on the wonderful world also before the flood. This is news? Of course they would be different! The evidence mounts!

Wait, so you predict that the world began with just precambrian life, then later cambrian life, then later Ordovician life, etc.? For that is what the fossil record shows. Was there not a single mammal in the time when all these other animals lived long before the flood?

There are 2 miles of fossil bearing rock in North Dakota below the KT boundary. As you go deeper into these two miles of rock, the fossils get stranger and stranger, with not a single modern species found. And you attribute all of this to nature just magically refusing to fossilize modern animals, while fossilizing things with little resemblance to our life? And everything in that 2 miles of rock fossilized in a particular order, an order that is duplicated throughout the world?

That's preposterous!

 

[dad]

I think you are addressing this to the wrong person. Have you followed the debate between Xianghua and myself? This is indeed what Xianghua does, in fact admits that he does: stick unrelated vehicles together and make a pattern in his mind that makes them look the same as the kin shown in trees. His mistake is in assuming that scientists do what he does, just group things that make a pattern in our mind and declare victory. We have been trying to explain to him that this is not what scientists do. Rather they collect data and run complex analysis to understand the relationships. If the data does not make a statistically significant hierarchy they do not publish it as such.

They do not understand the relationships. They try to relate fossils together assuming they have enough samples. They miss the forest for the trees. You cannot do stats without enough data.

The link I keep posting explains the analysis and links to primary sources with more information.

your problem is the way you use beliefs to 'analize' hopelessly inadequate percentages of fossils, and inapplicable genetics etc etc.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They do not understand the relationships. They try to relate fossils together assuming they have enough samples. They miss the forest for the trees. You cannot do stats without enough data.

Uh, Xianghua and I were talking about phylogenic trees of living animals, not fossils. We have abundant data on many taxa. And we have multiple studies that take multiple pieces of data and run complex calculations to determine the phylogenic tree and the probability that the tree is meaningful and not the result of simple chance. Are you saying these scientists don't understand statistics? Are you saying in spite of their detailed analysis that shows the findings are significant, they simply do not understand the math? And the peer reviewers didn't understand the math either? And multiple scientists accepted multiple such studies without realizing the math was wrong and with nobody taking the time to correct them?

Have you even read their studies? Can you name one study that produced a phylogenic tree that you analyzed and determined their math was wrong?

Before one can critically review a study he needs to read it, yes?

 

[xianghua]

What software did you use to construct your tree? What was the data set on which it was based? What process or algorithms were used?

If you don't have an answer for the above, then you've already demonstrated the difference.

as i explained: we dont need it since we know that atruck is more similar to other truck.

 

[pitabread]

as i explained: we dont need it since we know that atruck is more similar to other truck.

You've been trying to argue that your tree is no different than real phylogenetic trees of biological organisms. But then you admit your tree is not constructed via real phylogenetic methods.

You've just demonstrated your own argument is invalid.

(And besides, when I ran trees based on trucks and cars it didn't demonstrate that trucks are "more similar" to other trucks. Which makes sense since most characteristics of cars and trucks actually overlap a lot, as opposed to being completely distinct.)

 

[pitabread]

its true. but again its also true for creatures.

No. The point you keep missing is we're talking about statistical significance of respective trees.

It's possible to construct different trees and have them being highly statistically significant with respect to each other. Which in turn suggests there is still a valid relationship between organisms. This is why I suggested you re-read that Talkorigins page which you previously quoted, because it talks about just this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees

However, when it came to the trees of vehicles I constructed, there wasn't any statistical significance between the different trees. Which makes sense given there is no hereditary relationships between vehicles.

 

[dad]

Uh, Xianghua and I were talking about phylogenic trees of living animals, not fossils. We have abundant data on many taxa. And we have multiple studies that take multiple pieces of data and run complex calculations to determine the phylogenic tree and the probability that the tree is meaningful and not the result of simple chance. Are you saying these scientists don't understand statistics? Are you saying in spite of their detailed analysis that shows the findings are significant, they simply do not understand the math? And the peer reviewers didn't understand the math either? And multiple scientists accepted multiple such studies without realizing the math was wrong and with nobody taking the time to correct them?

Have you even read their studies? Can you name one study that produced a phylogenic tree that you analyzed and determined their math was wrong?

Before one can critically review a study he needs to read it, yes?

The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees. Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.

 

[dad]

No. The point you keep missing is we're talking about statistical significance of respective trees.

It's possible to construct different trees and have them being highly statistically significant with respect to each other. Which in turn suggests there is still a valid relationship between organisms. This is why I suggested you re-read that Talkorigins page which you previously quoted, because it talks about just this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees

However, when it came to the trees of vehicles I constructed, there wasn't any statistical significance between the different trees. Which makes sense given there is no hereditary relationships between vehicles.

Seems to me if trucks weigh more than cars, maybe have different braking systems, heights, tires, fuel, and Etc there would be some sort of statistical differences?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm reminded of the Harry Potter scene where all the gold cups and other treasure items spontaneously multiply filling up the whole vault.