the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

If you would refer to all 4 in that picture with the term "robot", do you think people will agree to that? WOULD YOU?????

no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?

 

[Speedwell]

no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?

https://cdn.notonthehighstreet.com/...ages/002/097/428/original_wood-watch-bear.jpg

If it can be shown to have been manufactured. Otherwise not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also when a change is mutated such as say a lens is produced or a change in the lens strength this will not work without the connects to the brain. The chances of those happening at the same time are impossible and have never been produced in tests.

...so therefore the eye, brain, connections and the whole animal instantly popped into existence out of nothing?

Oh, you forgot to mention that your mode for bringing on the first horse totally violates the laws of nature. Why look at the spec in evolutions eye, while ignoring the log in the eye of creationism?

But should you choose to say, "but God did it", why doesn't the evolutionist get to say "but God did it" also?

Better yet, why can't we say,"But god did it", where "god" is the god of Hawking, which is basically another name for nature?

The problem with your view is that it is completely contradicted by the fossil record and other evidence, which clearly shows evolution happened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Duplicate post

 

[doubtingmerle]

why not? i already said that it has those living traits. so according to your criteria its not a watch. in such a case. (by the way you link above is broken).

Wait, we just get to make up traits about something and pretend it has those traits?

Fine, the watch in your picture has the trait of free will. Is it a human?

 

[doubtingmerle]

no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?

Ok, so if this watch had free will you would call it a human?

 

[PsychoSarah]

no. because human have a free will.

Free will doesn't demonstrably exist. Our universe could be entirely deterministic, and we wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[Kylie]

The video I linked on the previous page is one example #728. This is an eye specialists who best knows about the makeup of the eye. As mentioned some of components that do seperate jobs need to be present together otherwise the associeted mechanism will not function. Yet it is impossible for random mutations to produce those different components at the same time. Also when a change is mutated such as say a lens is produced or a change in the lens strength this will not work without the connects to the brain. The chances of those happening at the same time are impossible and have never been produced in tests.

You do realise that an OPTICIAN does not require the slightest knowledge about evolution, yet? This man is completely UNQUALIFIED to comment on on the evolution of the eye.

Also, how many times do I have to say that EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM?

Like I said it is easy to cite a light sensitive patch as one stage of an eye and then a cup eye. But no one has ever explained how these happened and the smaller steps that go with them. There are around 50 odd components to a so called simple light sensitive patch. Plus no one has even explaned the other million plus components of the eye besides the simple examples given. It is assumed from the over simplistic examples that evolution by natural selection can do this.

Because it happened in lots of individuals at once.

Some would have had some components needed, but not others. But every now and then, you would have had individuals who had the components required to work together and give them a slightly better eye which gave them a slightly higher advantage, and that is all you need.

 

[Kylie]

I am not saying that. If you would have read the articles you will see that there are other mechanisms where living things dont have to rely on adpative evolution to change. The genetic info is already there and just needs to be switched on. When is an enviroment that puts them under pressure this can activate processes that can switch on and express genes in response that help them to adpat. Or when creatures are coexisting with other creatures and organisms they can co-evolve where genetic info is shared. The enviromentacts as a conduit.

Can you give me a specific example of this?

Living things and the enviroment act and work together changing whole ecosystems. It isnt all about survival of the fittest or predator against prey. Much of life is designed to cohabitate and work as one big organism which changes all living things on an ongoing basis. It makes much more sense as well becuase we know there is a vast amount of DNA that is more functional than we realize and hqave recently discovered. Rather than creatures trying to find the right genetic info to change by a blind and random process that requires a lot of hit and miss they can just tap into the vast amount of pre-existing genetic info or recombine what is already there.

Citation required.

I have posted the evidence for this is you care to read it. It is quite interesting. The classic idea of Neo Dawinisn is changing as more discoveries are being made just like it changearound 100 years ago. Darin did not know and could not have known a lot of what is being found today.

I do not find your evidence convincing.

 

[Kylie]

then show me my mystake.

For a start, you are assuming that evolution is random. It is not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. because human have a free will.

And that's the only difference between a robot and a human?

so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?

I don't know. Why don't you point me to such an object so that I can investigate it? Ow, right....

 

[stevevw]

Very true, though you appear to be somewhat behind the curve on those changes. But how does that disprove the theory of evolution?

Becuase a lot of the new discoveries/changes have replaced Neo-Darwinism as the main force behind how living things change. If you look on this site most people believe that natural selection is the driving force for evolution giving selection a great deal of creative power. That idea is no longer tenable in the light of new information. Natural selection has not only been deminished in its creative power it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.

It is said by some that the earth is flat.

Just saying.

 

[xianghua]

Wait, we just get to make up traits about something and pretend it has those traits?

yep. why not? its a theoretical question. so this is a watch or not if it has living traits?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Becuase a lot of the new discoveries/changes have replaced Neo-Darwinism as the main force behind how living things change. If you look on this site most people believe that natural selection is the driving force for evolution giving selection a great deal of creative power. That idea is no longer tenable in the light of new information. Natural selection has not only been deminished in its creative power it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.

I think you've either misunderstood what @Speedwell said or you've conflated the "Theory of Evolution" with "fixation of (rare) beneficial mutations by natural selection" when in fact, the latter is actually just a small part of the former.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

So, it isn't the case that any aspect of the Theory of Evolution is being done away with, just that the various selection pressures and ways by which that refinement comes about naturally within the Theory of Evolution are now better understood and well documented. For example, if you look at the summary table on this research paper: Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics - you'll see that the Theory of Evolution still holds true to naturalistic explanations - albeitwith a wider diversity by which it comes about naturally. Why are you going against the very research you posted?

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Are you even reading these research articles? From the opening paragraph of this one:

"Although biologists have always been concerned with complex phenotypes, the matter has recently become the subject of heightened speculation, as a broad array of academics, from nearly every branch of science other than evolutionary biology itself, claim to be in possession of novel insights into the evolution of complexity. The claims are often spectacular. For example, Kirschner and Gerhart (1) argue that evolutionary biology has been “woefully inadequate” with respect to understanding the origins of complexity and promise “an original solution to the long-standing puzzle of how small random genetic change can be converted into complex, useful innovations.” However, this book and many others like it (e.g., refs. 2⇓⇓–5) provide few references to work done by evolutionary biologists, making it difficult to understand the perceived areas of inadequacy, and many of the ideas promoted are known to be wrong, making it difficult to appreciate the novelty."​

It then goes on to say in the closing comments:

"Closing Comments

Because it deals with observations on historical outcomes, frequently in the face of incomplete information, the field of evolution attracts significantly more speculation than the average area of science. Nevertheless, a substantial body of well tested theory provides the basis for understanding the pathways that are open to evolutionary exploration in various population-genetic contexts. Four of the major buzzwords in biology today are complexity, modularity, evolvability, and robustness, and it is often claimed that ill-defined mechanisms not previously appreciated by evolutionary biologists must be invoked to explain the existence of emergent properties that putatively enhance the long-term success of extant taxa. This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry."
​

So, the Theory of Evolution remains uncontested, but again, a range of still very natural mechanisms for the success of the theory (rather than just natural selection on its own) are now better understood and well-documented.

Bacteria being able to become anti-bioctic resistant is actually a loss of function ot a gain.

Resistance to the antibiotic can occur by mutations in the 16S rRNA gene, which reduces the affinity of streptomycin for the 16S molecule (Springer et al., 2001). Reduction of specific oligopeptide transport activities also leads to spontaneous resistance of several antibiotics, including streptomycin (Kashiwagi et al., 1998). In these examples, resistance occurred as a result of the loss of a functional component/activity.

Besides anti-bioctic resistance has been around for thousands of years so it designed with the ability
Resistance to antibiotics is ancient
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm

I'm not sure if you've missed something here, because even the cited creation "research" you've quoted (not sure of your source, whether it be Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? - Creation Research Society , Islam and Evolution - Ummah.com - Muslim Forum or even Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: No argument for evoluti ) goes on to contradict itself by giving examples of mutations that change the structure of an enzyme (i.e. not a loss of function after all) to cause a resistance to Ciprofloxacin.

We of course know it doesn't apply to all cases of bacterial antibiotic resistance and the reasons for resistance is varied from case to case. We do know for a fact though that an addition/duplication of genomic material also causes resistance:

Contribution of Gene Amplification to Evolution of Increased Antibiotic Resistance in Salmonella typhimurium

Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment <== Not bacterial specifically, but it does touch on the resistance gained by such duplications in bacteria:

"Many bacteria amplify genes as an adaptive response to antibiotic treatment [36,61,62]. Similarly, it is commonly acknowledged that gene amplifications are known to occur in cancer tumours in response to various drug treatments (see Kondrashov & Kondrashov [36] for review). However, the amplification of genes in response to various drug treatments is not limited to somatic cells and microbes. In the last several years, abundant data have been collected on the amplification of genes in response to various treatments of Leishmania [63] and malaria [23]. The Plasmodium falciparum multidrug resistance gene (pfmdr1) is a target of adaptive evolution in nature in response to the widespread use of chloroquine and other anti-malarial drugs." ..... "It is now understood that pfmdr1 gene duplication occurred independently in nature multiple times [66,69], and malaria with increased resistance to different drugs is found throughout the world from Africa [70] to Asia [71,72] and South America [73]. Finally, at least one amplification event of the pfmdr1 gene shows evidence of having occurred through the action of positive selection [74] and adaptive amplification in P. falciparum has been shown in at least one other gene [75], GTP-cyclohydrolase I (gch1), which is involved in the synthesis of substrates upstream of other enzymes that are commonly targeted by antifolate drugs."​

Mutation Rates and Antibiotic Resistance | Learn Science at Scitable <== This one is a Very Good Read! It goes into the many varied ways in which bacteria mutate and grow resistances through massive numbers and random mutations...​

Not just that if simple celled organisms are going to change and gain new genetic info it is going to be more likley because of HGT than evolution. Bacteria can also transfer DNA to humans
Bacterial DNA in Human Genomes
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/

HGT IS Evolution. Why would you think it isn't?

So all in all, it seems you might completely misunderstand what Evolution is. Perhaps if you took the time to understand it better before attempting to refute it? I might make a humble suggestion here...: Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course

 

[xianghua]

Free will doesn't demonstrably exist. Our universe could be entirely deterministic, and we wouldn't be able to tell.

so how do you know what hand you will move before its happen? another question: if there is no will then when someone create a car its the result of a natural event (because there is no such a thing as will in this case)?

 

[xianghua]

For a start, you are assuming that evolution is random. It is not.

actually i said that in this case there is no selection pressure in this case since there is no advantage to a single part without the other one. so this is indeed a random event or very close to.

 

[xianghua]

I don't know. Why don't you point me to such an object so that I can investigate it? Ow, right....

so you cant detect design just by looking at this image? :

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so you cant detect design just by looking at this image? :

-_-

It has tell-tale signs of manufacture. If we'd never seen one before, then no, we wouldn't be able to detect design just by looking at it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yep. why not? its a theoretical question. so this is a watch or not if it has living traits?

Is it a human if the watch has the trait of free will?