the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

I'm not sure what magic could cause this but design seems to be pretty strong magic.

Intelligent Design is magic according to most IDists.

 

[Speedwell]

Natural selection is guided by relative fitness of mutated organisms in a population. It gives the thumbs up for survival to a fitter organism and the less fit organism is bred out of the population or dies.

So Natural Selection must first have a mutation to work with, whether to give it the thumbs up or thumbs down.

If the mutation is guided (as by a designer) Natural Selection would supply a mechanism by which the success of the design in the environement might be established. But this would no longer be mindless evolution, rather it would reflect a design development.

It almost sounds as if you think evolution has long-term targets beyond the next step. Evolution has nothing but expediency. It's what we used to call when I worked in engineering, a "kludge."

If the mutation comes about randomly then Natural Selection will select and determine the direction of change, towards fitter but the Evolutionary process will be seen to be fundamentally random and unguided.

No, guided towards increasing fitness by natural selection.

If a subsequent beneficial mutation does not occur, if a detrimental mutation happens, then the direction of change will reverse and any previous benefits will be lost.

It won't necessarily "reverse" (I don't know what you mean by that, anyway). Any subsequent mutation may simply change the direction. A specific mutation is not required; only one that is in some way beneficial.

So the term Natural Selection taken on its own describes a guiding principle (be it a limited one), whereas the Non-intelligent Evolutionary Theory describes a process that because it is driven by random mutation is fundamentally unguided.

I don't quite follow you here: if natural selection is present as a guiding principle, how can the process be deemed "fundamentally unguided?"

 

[doubtingmerle]

Intelligent Design is magic according to most IDists.

Sorta odd to see believers in magic to accuse other views as being magic.

 

[xianghua]

That's a minimal genome for a modern DNA-based cellular organism. This isn't necessarily what the earliest life would have looked like. Consequently, your conclusion doesn't follow.

actually the opposite is true. since science is base on evidence we have and not about the evidence we dont have, and since all the evidence we do have point to many genes for a minimal cell- the position that a cell can function with only a few genes isnt scientific. so why you prefer to believe in a non scientific belief? do you have any evidence for this suppose simpler cell? (say 5-10 genes instead of about 100)

 

[pitabread]

since science is base on evidence we have and not about the evidence we dont have, and since all the evidence we do have point to many genes for a minimal cell- the position that a cell can function with only a few genes isnt scientific.

But again, this is based on modern cells. IOW, cellular organisms already the result of ~4 billion years of evolution.

Nobody things that the first life-form was a fully-formed modern cellular organism. You're just arguing a strawman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

1+1 still equalled 2, even many billions of years ago.
The first organim(s) upon which Natural Selection could have guided development must have been a population of organisms that were capable of being fitter for reproduction than the other organisms.

Given that I am a supporter of the RNA world hypothesis, and that RNA based genomes mutate much more frequently than DNA based ones do, I'd honestly say that there could have been differences for natural selection to act upon within the second generation of living cells (amusingly, the first generation wouldn't be considered alive until after they had reproduced anyways).

For the sake of the argument I am willing to come down to much lower levels than 100 genes. So name your minimal level of functional complexity.

-_- individual genes can be functional by themselves, however, again, as a supporter of the RNA world hypothesis I feel the need to mention that segments of RNA as short as 3 base pairs can function as enzymes. In fact, RNA can function as an enzyme and as a genetic template, and in modern cells, RNA does most of the work. If trillions upon trillions of random RNA sequences are produced, with shorter sequences appearing more frequently than long ones and with there being only 4 different bases in RNA, it would be an inevitability that functional RNA would be produced in vast quantities.

Are we going to say that a single peptide can reproduce into a population of peptides subject to Natural Selection?

Lol, no, because proteins don't generally reproduce themselves. The closest thing to an exception I can think of is prions, but they don't really replicate. Proteins they come in contact with just tend to adapt their conformation.

 

[xianghua]

But again, this is based on modern cells. IOW, cellular organisms already the result of ~4 billion years of evolution.

Nobody things that the first life-form was a fully-formed modern cellular organism. You're just arguing a strawman.

again; do you have any evidence for a simpler cell? yes or no?

 

[pitabread]

again; do you have any evidence for a simpler cell? yes or no?

Yes. I suggest researching "protocells" and look up material on that.

There's a good, brief primer here: Protocells Models in Origin of Life and Synthetic Biology

There's another article here describing the origin of cells: The Emergence of Cells During the Origin of Life

 

[pitabread]

What has "supernaturalism" got to do with it? If I think that the designer was supernatural and you think the designer was a person from within the universe, how does this negate the central argument?

One is testable, one is not.

Natural explanations are constrained by the natural laws of the universe and thus have basis for comparison. Whereas supernatural explanations have no constraints and therefore no means by which they can be tested.

So we deny a good explanation because we don't like theists way of using it?

Intelligent Design (as it current stands) isn't a good explanation. Have you ever looked into the science of it? It's largely crap, which is why it's generally viewed as a pseudo-science by most scientists.

The problem is that the ID movement got hijacked by political opportunists to push it as an alternative to biological evolution, in spite of the fact the underlying science wasn't there in the first place. Eventually they wound up in court, and we all know how that turned out...

Every molecular biologist involved in development of things based upon biology whether that invloves manipulating biological things or copying biological function and design for other purposes, recognises design in the system.

I don't think you speak for any molecular biologists.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

All of these articles represent various arguments for evolutionary development of already existing forms and say nothing about biogenesis, which is invention. They are also scattered with apriori assumptions, just so stories and evidence that could just as easily be used to show design.

I couldn't help but notice you handwaving it away like magic without even attempting to address it, you know that isn't a thing, right? Why not just admit you don't know how to refute it and you have no idea where to start anyway? It is a very complex field of science and it takes years of study to properly understand the mountains of data in support of Evolution, so there's no shame in it. Novel structures are a common occurrence in Evolution, but I understand if you're flat out grasping the basics, so I'll let it be for now. I would still implore you to try reading the info on plausible pathways of abiogenesis I provided earlier, there's plenty of evidence in there for you to ignore there too: https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html

and those referenced papers again:

Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities
tRNA acceptor stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding

It is not circular to say that the best explanation for design, when it is evident, is the only cause of design that has ever been observed.

True, if that were the case, then I'd agree. That sure isn't the case with Evolution and biological systems though. Your lack of understanding is not a replacement for evidence and facts.

It is circular to say that all things must have originated from natural selection because we see things that have originated from NS, especially when NS is not even capable of producing the observed effect which is the origin of something new, that is biological life.

Well, again, your ignorance of the subject matter isn't a refutation of the evidence by any stretch. Nobody has said that it "must have originated from natural selection", it's that all the evidence and observations show this to be a thing, and given there's no other evidence for novel structures coming about, this is what we go with until better evidence or a better explanation for the evidence we have comes along.

The model for ID proposes design and that's all. It leaves the way for research open minded unlike the NS model that workd to shoe horn everything into a very narrow minded framework.
The model for creationism is that God spoke things into existence.

So, here's the problem: Natural Selection explains all the evidence and observations and is contradicted by none of it. There's literally no reason and no evidence for any other method. Adding a superfluous layer of supernatural fiddling when there's no need of it, is a waste of everyone's time and effort. That and that there's no evidence for a designer anyway means occams razor has it right. If you have any evidence or can explain the data we find better than evolution, then you'll be onto something. That will never happen because you won't even look at the subject let alone learn enough of it to contribute a better way than the well evidenced and well-understood Theory of Evolution.

I don't expect to be able to debunk the research. It all beleives in an assumption (Strict Naturalism) that I do not buy anyway.
So the start of my negation would be that any model that purpots to explain the reality of life, the universe and everything, and assumes methodological naturalism at its core is likely to be flawed.
Most science doesn't need to go that far, and scientific papers only make reference to the dogma of Darwinian evolution because it is all but compulsory to do so,

But it is demonstrably useful and provides results - so your objections are going to be nothing more than background noise unless you can provide empirical data to support your position. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

they then go onto ignore the whole silly business and examine the subject from a view point of design anyway.

Great! If that's the case, then perhaps we can start there! Point out where they ignore the "whole silly business and examine the subject from a view point of design anyway " - because this would be a positive claim you've made that would actually be supported by something substantial.... if you could support it, that is.

Philosophy is the basis for all rational thinking. If your basic philosophy is flawed then everything that you do will reflect the foundation that you build on.
The idea that functionally coherent systems at the basic biological level can suddenly pop into existence, from no cause, confounds the basic philosophy that something cannot come from nothing.

Not surprised. I totally have to agree with you on that point. Lucky that isn't what the science tells us anyway, right? That's the sort of thinking borne of fringe religions, not science.

See the paper referenced by @xianghua above.

Oh, This one?: How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept - Annual Reviews Collection - NCBI Bookshelf

Sure, for what we would consider life, yes, that's what we consider the minimum compliment of genes to be entirely self-sufficient. Early prebiotic self-replicating molecules are of course a precursor to this stage which of course is wholly complimentary to the research he quoted - again for reference:
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html

and those referenced papers:

Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities
tRNA acceptor stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding

The offer is still there, so feel free to refute any or all of them with actual evidence if you like, I'm not sure what problem either of you seem to think it presents... lacking the fundamental understanding of the topic surely can't be helping you here. You guys really should crack open a book on the subject by someone actually contributing to this research.

ROFL. So now you would have to know my daughter before you would aknowledge that ingredients that come together in a certain recipe make something else.

Do you think that if my daughter just threw the ingrediants at the oven that a yummy cake would come out? I suspect you might. The truth is that among all of the myraids of possible combinations of ingredients that are available according to the laws of physics etc, there are very few that are funtionally useful, and then only as part of a functionally coherent system.

Given your propensity to mash keys on your keyboard about this topic, making completely unfounded and at times hysterically inaccurate claims seemingly without thinking, you could be talking about your daughter who is 3 months old for all I know. You really do struggle with theory of mind, don't you? Perhaps had you thought to use an appropriate prose such as "my teenage daughter" or something similar to hint at the effect you were after, might have been more impactful? Otherwise, why would I think your potentially 3 month old daughter could bake a cake in the first place? In order to successfully pull off an analogous argument like that using intrinsically personal circumstance, you must first put yourself in the other person's shoes momentarily to understand how little they might know about you and your personal life. Perhaps this failing is endemic and possibly contributing to the root cause here? this is a very real possibility now I think about it.

But you are wrong about proteins. The experiments show that aminos (the building blocks for proteins are synthesized), and that they may at times link together into strings.

You're right, I misspoke & meant to say amino acids, not proteins... -_-

Because a ratioanl thinker knows that democaracy, establishment and peer pressure form no part in the legitimate scientific endeavour.
The rational thinker will cast his mind back over the history of thinking and consider the times when these things have prevailed and see the absolute nonsense (often dangerous nonsense) that is pushed as truth in that climate.
The rational thinker knows that the humanity is very prone to herd mentality and that professional training has a large element of this tendancy underpinning it.

...... ??

I'm going to pretend you didn't just completely fail at understanding what I wrote, so again, why would any rational thinker even entertain the idea that your incredulous views on Evolution being false, should be authoritative over the millions of biologists, researchers, medical staff, and scientists otherwise uncategorised throughout the world that have years if not decades of formal training in the field and continue to work actively contributing practical and useful research, findings and technology using Evolution? Again so we're clear, these people are making actual useful products and progress using the Theory of Evolution!

i.e. How could you be Rational if you deny the actual progress being made that could only be possible if it was true??

So even a highly respected Philsopher is expected to bow to the high priesthood of Biological Scientism?
Have you read his book?Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel
It makes a very powerful point in respect of this argument.

Well, he might be a highly respected Philosopher (I consider this point debatable however), but with respect to Science, Biology and the Theory of Evolution, he clearly hasn't grasped the concept, and his musings on the point are bunk, as demonstrated by the actual progress and technological advancement the Theory of Evolution affords us.

LOL of course a replicator was not involved in the origin of life! How twisted can one get?
Are you now denying that NS played a part in the development of species after life was originated? In case you are not aware, NS requires a replicator. The replicator I refer to is the life that originated itself, a self replicating organism (perhaps you thought I am referring to a photocopying machine).

I'm just going to go ahead and acknowledge you didn't read the material provided and wait patiently while you actually take the time and effort to read and understand what you've been given. If you don't understand it or have questions, just ask. Again, there's no shame in it (heck, I probably wouldn't be able to answer some questions either), someone here would be able to help, if not me - especially since some members here are actively working in these very fields, and perhaps even had a hand in writing the scientific research up in the first place.

The point being made is that your claim of "no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator" is completely moot. You should at least make some effort to understand the subject matter (never mind the complexities of it) that you want to refute BEFORE you put your thoughts all over the internet for everyone to see.

More complicated recipes for the cake I see, but a way of sponateously bringing it all together to make a functional protein or a self replicating organism, I do not.

...."You can lead a horse to water...."

In short, your comment "...and the atmospheric conditions were found to be counter productive for subsequent development." subsequently belies your profound ignorance on the Miller-Urey experiment and the science that supports it. If you had so much as attempted to read up on it, you'd know how silly that statement is, and you wouldn't have so much proverbial 'egg' on your face right now. My guess is that you probably wouldn't understand much of it anyway, which is why we're having this conversation right now.

The way in which all of this very nice evidence is presented is fundamentally flawed. If lots of high brow types think that it is foolish to point this truth out, that is their loss.

As I've quite clearly demonstrated already, it's your understanding of the subject matter that is fundamentally flawed, not the evidence that's affording us all the actual progress and technology we enjoy in our everyday lives.

Ever heard of perpetual motion? I have seen some very good "evidence" for that as well, that is until one looks a little closer. The beleivers in that froth at the mouth equally as much when it is pointed out how absurd the concept is.

Of course, and so they should be called out on it, because it is faulty, and the science doesn't support it. You know what we don't see though? We don't see Perpetual Motion Theory taught in high schools and Universities, we don't see Governments devote funding and grants to further research into Perpetual Motion machines, We don't see Big Pharma investing heavily in it, nor do we see practical applications of Perpetual Motion Machines in everyday living, improving the quality of life, longevity and health and well-being, etc.

Why is that, do you think?

Irrespective of what you maintain, whatever process you invoke, there is a functionally coherent system of some sort that demands an explanation, and explanation that is not supplied by the probabilites that present nor by a plausible natural process that would cause the system to function.

That you don't understand it, is not a refutation of the well-founded science that continually produces useful and practical results.

Had a look and it's more of the same old. Very academic, and convuluted ways of trying to wedge close that door against everything that the world tells us.

...so not able to refute it then? Surely, if what you think is accurate, you'll have no trouble refuting it, right? Otherwise, the fact that you "can't understand it" is not the same as "refuted with facts and evidence" now, is it?

also again, given all this:

As for your "no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator" nonsense, Behold!:

A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life <== (Requires Login)
A formal model of autocatalytic sets emerging in an RNA replicator system
The Origin of Life: Chemical Evolution of a Metabolic System in a Mineral Honeycomb? <== (Requires Login)
A chiroselective peptide replicator <== (Requires Login)

and your statement -

What cannot occur through any identified natural process (apart from the process of intelligent design), nor by chance is the invention of a sufficiently functionally coherent system that it is capable of self replication.

- made after discussing the above seems at odds with a coherent train of thought. Do you acknowledge you might've been mistaken on your uninformed opinion of what can and cannot occur through any identified natural process? Remember, your God is watching you, so be honest now...

Wow! Now denying that mathematics forms a basis of science as well I see. First Philosophy is irellevant and now mathematics.

Feel free to substantiate your accusation with evidence because that's not what I said. Also, given I've already provided a number of scientific research papers that outright refute your "mathematics" idea, it's up to you to support your opinion with facts and/or evidence. Until then, we can safely set aside your opinion as "unsubstantiated".

Does not contradict, rather it seeks to contradict and wishes to encourage research to falsify the assertion. But a wee way to go yet.

Feel free to address the evidence whenever you're ready to be taken seriously. Stating "Does not contradict" in no way makes all the actual evidence and facts proving it does contradict, go away.

Natural selection is guided by relative fitness of mutated organisms in a population. It gives the thumbs up for survival to a fitter organism and the less fit organism is bred out of the population or dies.

Is this your own thought, because you might actually understand it if that's the case.

So Natural Selection must first have a mutation to work with, whether to give it the thumbs up or thumbs down.

Yes, YES! That's Right! You DO understand it??

If the mutation is guided (as by a designer) Natural Selection would supply a mechanism by which the success of the design in the environement might be established. But this would no longer be mindless evolution, rather it would reflect a design development.

Oh, So Close! ...but no cigar.

If the mutation comes about randomly then Natural Selection will select and determine the direction of change, towards fitter but the Evolutionary process will be seen to be fundamentally random and unguided. If a subsequent beneficial mutation does not occur, if a detrimental mutation happens, then the direction of change will reverse and any previous benefits will be lost.

ooh, so close... First part is right, but then you went drastically off the rails and downhill with the last bit. Let's discuss - if a detrimental mutation with respect to the environment happens, it would be selected AGAINST by natural selection, wouldn't you agree? How would a detrimental mutation with respect to the environment be selected FOR?

So the term Natural Selection taken on its own describes a guiding principle (be it a limited one), whereas the Non-intelligent Evolutionary Theory describes a process that because it is driven by random mutation is fundamentally unguided.

Okay, we can work with this. If you recall from your High School Evolution 101 Unit, Natural Selection is a component of the Theory of Evolution, they aren't different or competing ideas. Again, Evolution in its most basal form is unguided random mutation filtered through natural selection. That's to say, a beneficial mutation would give an organism an advantage in a population, resulting in a slightly better chance at passing on those successful mutations. a "detrimental" mutation would do the opposite, resulting in the organism being more likely taken out of the population before it can pass on those detrimental genes, and neutral (or no) mutations would have a neutral effect. So Evolution is "Guided" through natural selection for want of a better term, but not intelligently so (unless you want to consider predators and good looking mates as a source of intelligence in a non-specific fashion). Perhaps this is a good time to recap? Here are those simulated examples of Natural Selection on random (i.e. NON-INTELLIGENT) mutation:

Evolution Simulator [FIXED] - OpenProcessing
TestTubeGames - Bringing Science to Life <== This one requires flash to be enabled, but it's fun to watch and good value!
BoxCar2D <== This too is a flashplayer, but same thing with some of the random designs it starts out with, quite spectacular & entertaining to see how they evolve...
In all these examples, an environment is emulated and an organism is given rules to live by and is then randomised and selected for in the same (albeit in a very simplistic) way as Evolution does in reality. I encourage you to have a look at how well these randomly produced and selectively filtered organisms adapt to their environment. it will help you understand how successful this process is at producing what looks like intelligently designed biological systems when in fact no designing was involved at all, let alone any intelligent designing.

So, perhaps you could demonstrate your understanding of Natural Selection by giving some basic methods of Natural Selection in operation? I'll start:

1. Predators.
2. Disease.
3. <insert method here>
4. <insert method here>
5. <insert method here>

As many as you think (there's no hard rules here, so don't think you have to have perfect text book responses, just your own understanding would be sufficient)

And that is exactly why all of us who recognise the flaw in the system must continue to tap away on our keyboards, that the believers in one of the biggest frauds of our times would have us shutup.

No, I'd rather say we'd want you to understand it first, even if you still want to disagree with it later. What you're doing is being disingenuous by attacking something you clearly lack an understanding of. As above, help yourself out by taking that first step to understanding the subject matter you want to disparage before you say anything more that makes yourself look silly on the open internet. Who knows, once you do understand it, you might even be able to bring up a valid point.

But as I pointed out in respect of Dawkins a while back the truth is that in the activity of people such as yourself, and the whole populist science thing, there is a very good platform from which the voices of reason can speak.

Too bad dogmatic people won't listen to that reason though. That said, I live in hope you might one day... you never know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually the opposite is true. since science is base on evidence we have and not about the evidence we dont have, and since all the evidence we do have point to many genes for a minimal cell

... that lives today, and which is the result of some 3.8 billion years of evolution....

- the position that a cell can function with only a few genes isnt scientific.

And the ignoring of 3.8 billion years of evolution is ridiculous.

 

[xianghua]

Yes. I suggest researching "protocells" and look up material on that.

There's a good, brief primer here: Protocells Models in Origin of Life and Synthetic Biology

There's another article here describing the origin of cells: The Emergence of Cells During the Origin of Life

i didnt see any reference for the number of genes for this prootocell in those articles. so what is the number?

 

[xianghua]

... that lives today, and which is the result of some 3.8 billion years of evolution....



And the ignoring of 3.8 billion years of evolution is ridiculous.

again: do you have any evidence for this simple cell? yes or no?

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually the opposite is true. since science is base on evidence we have and not about the evidence we dont have, and since all the evidence we do have point to many genes for a minimal cell- the position that a cell can function with only a few genes isnt scientific. so why you prefer to believe in a non scientific belief? do you have any evidence for this suppose simpler cell? (say 5-10 genes instead of about 100)

Except that abiogenesis experiments in 2013 resulted in protocells with the capacity to replicate and have a very basic metabolism could persist when just starting out with a few short sequences of RNA in a setting that replicated ancient Earth conditions. These cells don't even produce their own cell membranes, they just form around the RNA in an independent process, and yet, under those conditions, they persist and replicate. That's nothing compared to the complexity of a modern cell, heck, there are viruses more complex than that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ugh, double post

 

[Almost there]

There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:

A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.

Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.

We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.

paley also didn't know about DNA.

 

[Skreeper]

paley also didn't know about DNA.

Even with DNA his whole argument relies on the premise that complexity is a indicator for design which it isn't.

 

[Almost there]

Even with DNA his whole argument relies on the premise that complexity is a indicator for design which it isn't.

Actually, it's a better explanation than time, monkeys and typewriters. Just sayin'.

 

[Skreeper]

Actually, it's a better explanation than time, monkeys and typewriters. Just sayin'.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed.

 

[Almost there]

Your opinion is noted and dismissed.

Ditto.