the self replicating watch argument

[Skreeper]

i actually doesnt see any real design in a sand dune for instance.

This just defeats your entire position. According to your world view everything has been designed so sand dunes should also be evidence for design.

 

[xianghua]

The fact that you, yourself, have not seen the design of a watch is irrelevant. You are familiar with the idea that watches are designed..

right. as i familiar with the idea that motors are designed (and the flagellum is a motor). so what is the different realy?

 

[xianghua]

This just defeats your entire position. According to your world view everything has been designed so sand dunes should also be evidence for design.

no. not every object that was designed realy looks designed.

 

[46AND2]

right. as i familiar with the idea that motors are designed (and the flagellum is a motor). so what is the different realy?

A flagellum is not a motor. It is a structure found in nature, which has some semblance of a motor.

AGAIN I ask, when was the last time ANYONE observed the process of design of a flagellum? Until you can show me that, you cannot call it a motor in the same sense that a boat or automobile has a motor. We know that boat and car motors are designed because we have seen the process of design for these things. That is the only reason we know. If we don't have that same reason for flagellum, then we cannot conflate the two.

 

[xianghua]

A flagellum is not a motor.

so why even biologists call it a motor?:

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

We know that boat and car motors are designed because we have seen the process of design for these things. That is the only reason we know. .

so a genome is designed too because we have seen someone who created a genome?:

Researchers start up cell with synthetic genome : Nature News

 

[46AND2]

so why even biologists call it a motor?:

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

Because, as I said, it has some semblance of a motor. It is not a motor in the same sense that a 302 is a motor for a Ford musclecar, because NOBODY has observed a design process for the flagellum.

so a genome is designed too because we have seen someone who created a genome?:

Researchers start up cell with synthetic genome : Nature News

That particular synthetic genome, yes. All genomes? No. Where are the design specs for all the genomes we find in nature?

 

[xianghua]

Because, as I said, it has some semblance of a motor. It is not a motor in the same sense that a 302 is a motor for a Ford musclecar, because NOBODY has observed a design process for the flagellum.

so if you were never know that a car is the re sult of design you can never guess that a car is the result of design?

That particular synthetic genome, yes. All genomes? No. Where are the design specs for all the genomes we find in nature?

but you said that we know that something is designed because we have watched someone who created it. so the same is true for a genome.

 

[46AND2]

so if you were never know that a car is the re sult of design you can never guess that a car is the result of design?

For a person with sufficient ignorance of technology, then yes, that would be true.

but you said that we know that something is designed because we have watched someone who created it. so the same is true for a genome.

We have not watched somebody create the genomes which exist in nature. (Please note that, as should be obvious, replication is not equivalent to creation)

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

 

[Anguspure]

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 has 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

Douglass Axe has explored this possibility in his book Undeniable, and the appraisal of functional coherence is the key to this argument.

 

[xianghua]

We have not watched somebody create the genomes which exist in nature. (Please note that, as should be obvious, replication is not equivalent to creation)

what? its basically the same genome.

 

[46AND2]

what? its basically the same genome.

Please re-read the parenthetical clause over and over again until it sinks in....

 

[Skreeper]

no. not every object that was designed realy looks designed.

And some things have the appearance of being designed yet they are the result of purely natural phenomenon.

 

[dmmesdale]

A flagellum is not a motor.

And you're not a mechanic.

 

[pitabread]

so why even biologists call it a motor?:

Convenience of terminology would be the reason. However, using the same term to describe different objects doesn't necessarily make those objects identical or even remotely similar. A flagellum has about as much in common with an artificial motor as your stomach has with a fuel tank.

 

[Anguspure]

Convenience of terminology would be the reason. However, using the same term to describe different objects doesn't necessarily make those objects identical or even remotely similar. A flagellum has about as much in common with an artificial motor as your stomach has with a fuel tank.

The fagellum exhibits functional coherence at such a level that design is the best and most obvious conclusion. Any explanation that does not recognise the design is simply an absurdity.

 

[46AND2]

The fagellum exhibits functional coherence at such a level that design is the best and most obvious conclusion. Any explanation that does not recognise the design is simply an absurdity.

If the neither the designer, nor the process of design have been observed by anyone, it is not an obvious conclusion, for that is the only mechanism we have by which to identify something designed.

Can you give me an example of something definitively designed for which this is not true?

The mere fact that there is no evidence that such a being capable of designing the flagellum exists, is reason enough to make it a less likely origin than nature itself. It has always been so, from lightning to the sun, to volcanoes, all once attributed to gods, all since found to be in error.

 

[Anguspure]

If the neither the designer, nor the process of design have been observed by anyone, it is not an obvious conclusion, for that is the only mechanism we have by which to identify something designed.

Can you give me an example of something definitively designed for which this is not true?

The mere fact that there is no evidence that such a being capable of designing the flagellum exists, is reason enough to make it a less likely origin than nature itself. It has always been so, from lightning to the sun, to volcanoes, all once attributed to gods, all since found to be in error.

To resort to complete and utter absurdities because one hasn't met the designer, while posessing prima face evidence of design is ridiculous willfull foolishness.

The appraisal of such a high level of functional coherence in even the most basic biological form provides evidence of design at a significantly higher level than the best designers we know on Earth. So it should be obvious that the designer may not be observed or observable from our vantage point.

So to suggest that biological forms that clearly exhibit design at such high levels, may have come into existence by accidental invention or through some completely unknown unobserved and completely implausable process is just throwing up hands and gibbering like a monkey because we can't see how 1+1 must equal 2.

 

[Anguspure]

If the neither the designer, nor the process of design have been observed by anyone, it is not an obvious conclusion, for that is the only mechanism we have by which to identify something designed.

Can you give me an example of something definitively designed for which this is not true?

The mere fact that there is no evidence that such a being capable of designing the flagellum exists, is reason enough to make it a less likely origin than nature itself. It has always been so, from lightning to the sun, to volcanoes, all once attributed to gods, all since found to be in error.

What ability to design anything has "Nature" ever shown? Unless one is using the name "Nature" as a name for a thing that is capable of producing the functional coherence observed, of course. In which case a rose by any other name...

 

[46AND2]

To resort to complete and utter absurdities because one hasn't met the designer, while posessing prima face evidence of design is ridiculous willfull foolishness.

The appraisal of such a high level of functional coherence in even the most basic biological form provides evidence of design at a significantly higher level than the best designers we know on Earth. So it should be obvious that the designer may not be observed or observable from our vantage point.

So to suggest that biological forms that clearly exhibit design at such high levels, may have come into existence by accidental invention or through some completely unknown unobserved and completely implausable process is just throwing up hands and gibbering like a monkey because we can't see how 1+1 must equal 2.

The only evidence of design we have ever known, is the observation of designer and process of design, passed on through various bits of information to everyone else. It is the ONLY way design has ever been identified. The lack of it has always resulted in the lack of confirmation of design.

Flagellum does not have that. So can you please explain to me what this prima face evidence you say we have is? How has it been confirmed?

 

[Larniavc]

Your existence is unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you. While you are at it can you falsify water boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level?

You are using the word falsification incorrectly.

It does not mean what you think. We don’t have to show something is false we have to have a test to see if it is false.

If we boiled water to test the notion of it only boiling at 100C we would have an appropriate test for falsification.

For example: finding a rabbit it Cambrian rock strata would go a long way to falsify TOE but there is no way to falsify Creationism (for example) and thus TOE is scientific but creationism is not.