the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

and they are still cats. right?

The question is nonsensical. DM is using scientific taxonomical terms and you are asking a question using the imprecise popular meaning of "cat."

 

[Phred]

When someone is entrenched in the belief of something, in this case ID, there is nothing you can do that will break them of the belief. They have constructed everything in their system around the basic questions of existence around their belief and you can't shake that. In fact, they take pride in being unshakable. What you can do is offer up evidence, reason and your personal journey for the people who are reading this but not commenting. You'd be surprised what an impact you make on people who might be reading this, even years later.

Evolution is a fact. It's as much of a fact as gravity and it is as observed as gravity. Things fall, life evolves. Then we have the Theory of Gravity. We have the Theory of Evolution. The latter is actually far more evidenced than the former. We have no idea why something would follow a bend in spacetime and seem to "fall" but we know exactly why some creatures are born with mutations. We have the genetics and all the other sciences that go into supporting the ToE. We even have support from some pretty odd sciences such as geology. But no matter what, even if the entire Theory of Evolution were disproven, that wouldn't change the fact that life evolves. Because that's the observed fact that caused us to go create the Theory to tell us why. There will never be a happening that causes science to go, "oh, life was created and it appeared whole and unchanged." We started there and then we examined the world and found that there was no evidence to support it. They tried, oh how they tried, to support the Bible and find evidence to support it but they couldn't. So it must not be literal.

This will be dismissed and ignored. I can't help that. Data is data. It's not a belief. We accept the data and we accept the conclusions. That's science.

 

[Kylie]

ley me to do that simple. do you agree that a vision system is different from a motion system that is different from hearing system? its like the diffeirence between a cell-phone and a digital watch. a cell-phone has several parts that a watch doesnt and vice versa. right? so what make you think that any such different systems are near each other?

They are used for different things, but they may be based on the same building blocks.

Like how a wheel can be used for transport, but when used as a pulley, the wheel can be used for an entirely different purpose.

 

[doubtingmerle]

by a designer and not by a natural process. do you see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. That is why I have been emphasizing that I was talking about evolution by a designer. I am glad you finally understand what I am asking.

Ok, so you have given zero evidence that zebras popping up out of thin air is more likely than theistic evolution. So how do you know theistic evolution is wrong? Theistic evolution is far closer to the actual evidence than animals popping up out of thin air.

Personally, I go beyond theistic evolution, but I am asking you about your beliefs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and they are still cats. right?

And mammals are still mammals. Do all mammals have a common ancestor?

And fish are still fish. Do all fish have a common ancestor?

And birds are still birds. And frogs are still frogs. Etc.

 

[Meowzltov]

so? you gave the whale case as evidence for evolution because the hierarchy in their fossils. so i point out that we can arrange also cat fossils from the small to the big one. its of course doesnt prove they evolved from each other in such hierarchy. so the same is true for the whale fossils.

No, you completely misunderstand the evolution of whales. THERE IS NO HIERARCHY. Evolution has nothing to do with hierarchy. Only adaptive change. The progression of fossils I gave you showed a progression linked by a middle ear formation that began as a random mutation in four footed creatures, who returned to the sea. This random middle ear formation became the basis for sonar of cetaceans. IOW, because of what was originally a random mutation, we can follow through the fossil record the gradual mutations from four footed mammals to cetaceans. But there is NO HIERARCHY. There is only adaptation to environment via natural selection over a long period of time.

 

[xianghua]

They are used for different things, but they may be based on the same building blocks.

Like how a wheel can be used for transport, but when used as a pulley, the wheel can be used for an entirely different purpose.

but an heart structure is very different from an eye structure or from a nose etc. so they dont base on "the same building blocks". they are actually very different from each other in both structure and function.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but they are different kinds of mammals.

Just like lions and tigers are different "kinds" of cats.
And dogs and wolves are different "kinds" of canines.
And chimps and gorilla's are different "kinds" of primates.

both are also animals

Indeed. And eukaryotes. And vertebrates.

. so what?

So, at no point in the history of the evolution of life, did "one kind" evolve into a "different kind".

 

[DogmaHunter]

and they are still cats. right?

Yes.

Just like they are also still all mammals. And vertebrates. And Eukaryotes.
Just like all other mammals.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but an heart structure is very different from an eye structure or from a nose etc. so they dont base on "the same building blocks". they are actually very different from each other in both structure and function.

Many of the structures of the nose and heart are the same, such as arteries, nerves, muscles, and the proteins that form them.

An example of the way that animals use different structures for different purposes are the gill arches. These form in the embryos of all advanced vertebrates. But as time progresses, the arches vary to form different structures. In fish they form gills. In reptiles they form the major bones of the jaw. In mammals they migrate up to the ear and form the three little bones of the ear. It is the same structure in the embryo. It just modifies for different purposes as the creatures mature.

How did bones of the reptile jaw become bones of a mammal ear? Interestingly, we have a whole series of fossils that show step by step how it happened, with shrinking reptiles bones in later creatures that begin to separate from the jaw while the jaw starts to use a different joint in still later creatures. Eventually as one moves up the fossil record, one finds these bones completely separating from the jaw, and migrating to the ear.

So the three bones in the ear were not formed from scratch in one massive set of mutations. Rather, existing junk was found to be able to help transmit sound, and creatures evolved to refine that new function for the old junk.

 

[doubtingmerle]

by a designer and not by a natural process.

Your views have evolved . Previously your response was that, however species began, it was not by evolution. Now you switch to, however they began, it was not by naturalistic evolution. That opens up a whole lot of possibilities in theistic evolution for you to explore. Let me summarize some of the options:

1. Instantaneous creation of each "kind".
2. Evolution, with God micro-managing every detail.
3. Evolution, with God needing to make a few tweaks here and there.
4. Evolution, started by God.
5. Naturalistic evolution.

So previously, when I asked for your views, you said not evolution, which rules out 2-5, and leaves you with only some variation of #1.

But now you say not naturalistic evolution, and even say God micro-managing mutations is as likely as forming all new creatures from scratch. So you now appear open to views 2-4.

That's good news. Have fun exploring.

And maybe some day you will advance from the view that can only speak negatively (not evolution, not naturalistic, etc.), to positive assertions (by evolution, by mutations and natural selection, etc.)

 

[xianghua]

Of course I see the difference. That is why I have been emphasizing that I was talking about evolution by a designer. I am glad you finally understand what I am asking.

Ok, so you have given zero evidence that zebras popping up out of thin air is more likely than theistic evolution. So how do you know theistic evolution is wrong? Theistic evolution is far closer to the actual evidence than animals popping up out of thin air.

incorrect. first: we have many evidence who contradict stepwise evolution. secondly: it will be odd for a designer to design creatures in millions of years that looks like natural process rather then just design them at once.

And mammals are still mammals. Do all mammals have a common ancestor?

true. but this is a broad definition. unlike the cat case.

 

[xianghua]

No, you completely misunderstand the evolution of whales. THERE IS NO HIERARCHY. Evolution has nothing to do with hierarchy. Only adaptive change. The progression of fossils I gave you showed a progression linked by a middle ear formation that began as a random mutation in four footed creatures, who returned to the sea. This random middle ear formation became the basis for sonar of cetaceans. IOW, because of what was originally a random mutation, we can follow through the fossil record the gradual mutations from four footed mammals to cetaceans. But there is NO HIERARCHY. There is only adaptation to environment via natural selection over a long period of time.

but again: we can see that progression in cats too (from the small to the big one). and yet it doesnt prove any evolution. whale sonar is also evidence for design. since all sonars we know about are the product of design. so what make you believe that such a complex system can evolve by a natural process?:

(image from Animal echolocation - Wikipedia)

 

[xianghua]

double post.

 

[xianghua]

Many of the structures of the nose and heart are the same, such as arteries, nerves, muscles, and the proteins that form them.

true. but there is also a difference. right? and that difference suppose to evolve by mutations. so what make you think that all those different structures are near each other in such a huge sequence space?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but again: we can see that progression in cats too (from the small to the big one). and yet it doesnt prove any evolution.

Except their is no serious progression in size since domesticated house cats are very small, plus there is also the absolutely tiny (and sinfully adorably) black-footed cat which has a length of 17 inches at the most and the rusty-footed cat which comes in at 19 inches. So size has nothing to do with it.

whale sonar is also evidence for design. since all sonars we know about are the product of design. so what make you believe that such a complex system can evolve by a natural process?:

(image from Animal echolocation - Wikipedia)

But to make that claim, you have to first SHOW that echolocation is a designed feature and not an evolved one.

 

[Kylie]

but an heart structure is very different from an eye structure or from a nose etc. so they dont base on "the same building blocks". they are actually very different from each other in both structure and function.

The heart is a muscle, and it is built from the same basic building blocks as the other muscles you have.

 

[xianghua]

The heart is a muscle, and it is built from the same basic building blocks as the other muscles you have.

but its shape is very different from other organs. as we also have many shapes of proteins:

(image from Proteins - structure and functions)

 

[Kylie]

but its shape is very different from other organs.

Yeah, so what?

as we also have many shapes of proteins:

(image from Proteins - structure and functions)

So?

 

[doubtingmerle]

incorrect. first: we have many evidence who contradict stepwise evolution.

We have strong evidence against animals constantly popping into existence out of thin air--the law of conservation of matter and energy.

And besides, you have already agreed that animals popping into existence out of thin air is not more likely than God-driven evolution.

You just lost that argument.

secondly: it will be odd for a designer to design creatures in millions of years that looks like natural process rather then just design them at once.

Which is a big problem for creationism. Why is it when we line up the fossils that we find in the Cambrian next to those found in the Ordivician followed by those found in the Siluran, etc., it looks like evolution?

true. but this is a broad definition. unlike the cat case.

Wait, so all cats come from a common ancestor because that is a narrow definition, but "mammals" is a broad definition?

What about salamanders?

What about lizards?

What about birds?

What about finches?

What about frogs?

If all animals in a narrow classification share a common ancestor, how do I tell which groups are narrow enough to share a common ancestor? Must I call you to find out?

No matter where you draw the line, it is always arbitrary. There is always someone who thinks the border between related kinds is different from the place you pick. There is no indisputable boundary point.