the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

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

Of course it is. If that was comparible to evolution is you'd be right.

However, evolution is more than that; it's what is known in math as a stochastic process and such processes can be shown to produce complexity. Whatever you think may be happening in the real world, the math on which evolution is based is rock-solid.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, evolution is more than that; it's what is known in math as a stochastic process and such processes can be shown to produce complexity.

In pool, it's called a "break."

 

[Kylie]

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

 

[xianghua]

Whatever you think may be happening in the real world, the math on which evolution is based is rock-solid.

realy? so how many mutations required to evolve the first olfactory system for instance? if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math.

 

[xianghua]

not realy. first: they start with 3 parts as starting point. so even their first step cant evolve stepwise. secondly: this watch is clearly the product of design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

not realy. first: they start with 3 parts as starting point. so even their first step cant evolve stepwise. secondly: this watch is clearly the product of design.

 

[Speedwell]

realy? so how many mutations required to evolve the first olfactory system for instance? if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math.

Here is an easy introduction to the subject. Read about it.

https://www.math.wisc.edu/~anderson/RecentTalks/2010/CIBM.pdf

 

[PsychoSarah]

realy? so how many mutations required to evolve the first olfactory system for instance? if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math.

Doing that math would assume that there is only one way to get an olfactory system, which is not the case, and that it is possible to determine ALL possible pathways that could lead to it. For all I know, it's possible for an olfactory system to result entirely from a single base mutation.

Plus, olfaction is an exceedingly basic sense that's just an extension of cells reacting to different chemicals that come into contact with their cell walls/membranes. A sense practically all cells have that's just more specialized in the cells associated with the sense of smell in multicellular organisms.

 

[Kylie]

not realy. first: they start with 3 parts as starting point. so even their first step cant evolve stepwise. secondly: this watch is clearly the product of design.

I suspect that you need to watch the video again.

 

[xianghua]

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.

are you refer to the experiment we already discussed about?:

New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far

"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting. Other problems need to be solved, such as the fact that citrate is not a plausible prebiotic component: it needs to be replaced by an alternative component."

so still we have no evidence for a simpler cell that can survive by itself.

 

[xianghua]

Here is an easy introduction to the subject. Read about it.

https://www.math.wisc.edu/~anderson/RecentTalks/2010/CIBM.pdf

what this have to do with my question?

 

[xianghua]

I suspect that you need to watch the video again.

i suspect you should do that too:

go to 4:08 and you will see that he start with a pendulum that contain about 3 parts as starting point. this isnt evolution.

 

[xianghua]

For all I know, it's possible for an olfactory system to result entirely from a single base mutation.

do you have any evidence for that claim? only the olfactory receptor need at least several mutations to become an olfactory receptor.

A sense practically all cells have that's just more specialized in the cells associated with the sense of smell in multicellular organisms.

no. as far as i aware a tipical cell will not react with an odor mulecule. just a cell with an olfactory receptor. otherwise any cell should have an olfactory receptor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i suspect you should do that too:

Actually it is. Evolution begins with the components it has available.

go to 4:08 and you will see that he start with a pendulum that contain about 3 parts as starting point. this isnt evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

do you have any evidence for that claim?

-_- what did I say? Oh right, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine every single possible evolutionary path that would result in an olfactory system. This is why asking "how many mutations does it make for [insert trait here] to develop" is pointless. The closest I could get to an answer would be determining the olfactory system that has the fewest genes contributing to it, but with such a small percentage of organisms having their DNA sequenced, even that is currently out of reach.

Plus, you keep acting as if multicellular organisms predate the sense of smell, and there is no valid reason to do so. It's legitimately just an extension of the capacity for a cell to react to a specific chemical it comes into contact with. Since it is common for a single gene to cover reactions to multiple different chemicals, and most genes are derived from mutations on existing genes, it stands to reason that it is possible that a single base mutation is responsible.

only the olfactory receptor need at least several mutations to become an olfactory receptor.

If you assume that the first multicellular organism had no cells able to react to chemicals that came into contact with it. And I find the idea of a multicellular organism with no cell-to-cell communication to be a nonsense idea.

no. as far as i aware a tipical cell will not react with an odor mulecule.

The things you call "odor molecules" are not special types of chemical. You can smell methane, but those olfactory cells aren't the only cells reacting to it. Plenty of molecules you can't smell but other cells in your body will react to, such as pure sugar. It just doesn't stimulate your sense of smell because those cells aren't specialized for that. Just like all of your cells react to being damaged but only sensory nerve cells for pain will make you feel that damage. I do not understand how you keep missing how smell works. You smell bleach because bleach molecules evaporated into the air and you are breathing them it, it's not like the bleach is passively producing an entirely different molecule from itself and putting it into the air.

just a cell with an olfactory receptor. otherwise any cell should have an olfactory receptor.

-_- all cells react to chemicals, you just aren't getting that olfactory cells respond by passing it along to your brain. It's a specialized cell for a function all cells have to some extent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

are you refer to the experiment we already discussed about?:

New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far

"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting. Other problems need to be solved, such as the fact that citrate is not a plausible prebiotic component: it needs to be replaced by an alternative component."

so still we have no evidence for a simpler cell that can survive by itself.

I've posted sources that bring up plausible substitutes for citrate that would function the same before. Glad you retained something from our abiogenesis discussions, though you seem to have forgotten that we discussed this particular point before.

 

[Kylie]

i suspect you should do that too:

go to 4:08 and you will see that he start with a pendulum that contain about 3 parts as starting point. this isnt evolution.

And why is that not evolution?

Like I said, you need to watch the video again, because it address this very criticism at 0:52.

"The Theory of Evolution is NOT a theory of life's origin. It is a theory of how one form of life changes over time through mutation and natural selection, into another form.

You obviously confused the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, a common creationist mistake.

Therefore, in order to simulate evolution, NOT abiogenesis, we need to start with one form of life.

If you want to argue where did the first clocks come from, where did the first gears or springs come from, remember, this is your straw man, we started with a clock and smashed it.

If you still want to argue the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution, go find another forum."​

 

[xianghua]

-_- what did I say? Oh right, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine every single possible evolutionary path that would result in an olfactory system. This is why asking "how many mutations does it make for [insert trait here] to develop" is pointless. The closest I could get to an answer would be determining the olfactory system that has the fewest genes contributing to it, but with such a small percentage of organisms having their DNA sequenced, even that is currently out of reach.

we can be sure that at least 2 genes: one for olfactory receptor and one for a new point in the brain that can translate it into the sense of smell. and two gene is about 2000 bp.

Plus, you keep acting as if multicellular organisms predate the sense of smell, and there is no valid reason to do so.

sure we have. bacteria has no olfactory receptor or sense of smell. they also lack many organs that an animal has. so many organs suppose to evolved in multicellular creatures.

It's legitimately just an extension of the capacity for a cell to react to a specific chemical it comes into contact with.

sure. so we have a point were no olfactory receptor exist. and then at some point in the past this ability suppose to evolve= new mutation\s.

Since it is common for a single gene to cover reactions to multiple different chemicals, and most genes are derived from mutations on existing genes, it stands to reason that it is possible that a single base mutation is responsible.

i dont think so. by single point mutations we will get an heart fron non heart or an ear from non ear?

And I find the idea of a multicellular organism with no cell-to-cell communication to be a nonsense idea.

since we have no evidence for an olflactory receptor in bacteria- the burdon of proof is on the evolution side in this case.

The things you call "odor molecules" are not special types of chemical. You can smell methane, but those olfactory cells aren't the only cells reacting to it. Plenty of molecules you can't smell but other cells in your body will react to, such as pure sugar. It just doesn't stimulate your sense of smell because those cells aren't specialized for that.

again: many new olfactory receptors suppose to evolve in animals. an olfactory receptor that is able to sense a banana or grass or meat and so on. the ability to detect all those smells suppose to evolve in animals.

 

[xianghua]

And why is that not evolution?

Like I said, you need to watch the video again, because it address this very criticism at 0:52.

"The Theory of Evolution is NOT a theory of life's origin. It is a theory of how one form of life changes over time through mutation and natural selection, into another form.

You obviously confused the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, a common creationist mistake.

Therefore, in order to simulate evolution, NOT abiogenesis, we need to start with one form of life.

If you want to argue where did the first clocks come from, where did the first gears or springs come from, remember, this is your straw man, we started with a clock and smashed it.

If you still want to argue the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution, go find another forum."​

its funny because i do speak abut evolution and not abiogenesis. according to evolution many new organs and systems evolved after the first cell: hearing system, a vision system, a motion system and so on. so if every one of those suppose new systems need about 3-4 parts for their minimal function- its not evolution anymore.

 

[Speedwell]

what this have to do with my question?

You said,

"...if its realy rock-solid as you say it will be easy to show that math."

So here's the math; a brief summary of the mathematics on which evolution is based.