the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

What is very clear is that if someone has been manipulating evolution to create different species then that entity is not All knowing (and thus not God). The mess and poor decisions that have been made if evolution has been guided by an entity is amazing.

There are only 3 ways that this could be the case
1) A God who likes a huge Joke
2) An entity that is preforming trial and error
3) No involvement by any entity.

I agree. My basic take on things is:

1) The view that animals popped into existence over millions of years better fits the evidence than creation all at once in 4004 BC.
2) Micro-managed evolution better fits the evidence than animals popping into existence over millions of years.
3) Unguided evolution better fits the evidence than micro-managed evolution.

It took a long time to get Xianghua to agree to #1. Now we are working on proposition #2.

 

[xianghua]

Woah, why only one try? Do you think evolution has only one try?

no. but there were very few tries compare to the sequence space (this is my second part of this argument). but first we need to agree with the first part. so do you agree that if we had only about one or 2 tries it will be very unlikely to find a different functional structure?

 

[xianghua]

I stand by what I said.

fine. but remember again my car example:

the fact that we can arrange things in hierarchy doesnt prove evolution. even if those vehicles were able to reproduce.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

 

[xianghua]

Sir, that is evidence for evolution, not out of thin air creation.

no. its evidence for intelligent design in the lab and not for a natural process. so bottom line i showed evidence for instantaneous creation and we still have zero evidence for evolution.

There are hundreds of ways to classify cars. If you compare a Chevy truck with all the options to a base Ford truck, a base Chevy car, or a Jeep with nearly identical options, which would you classify the Chevy truck as closest to? One might go by the company trim and select the Chevy car, one might go by the shape of the vehicle and select the Ford, one might go by the long list of options and pick the Jeep. Each picks a different vehicle as the closest to that Chevy truck.

actually we can go by most characteristics. in this way we will get the best result. so basically all trucks will be one group (trucks) and all cars will by another group. its a basic classification.

What we find is that the fish were dividing into many groups, one of which led to the early tetrapods. But the group that led to the tetrapods,--including us--was closely related to some of the fish, having seperated from them only a few million years earlier. But they had separated from other fish long before that. So as strange as it may sound, there are some fish that are genetically closer to us then they are to other fish.

but if we will find out that those 2 species are actually colser to each other (under the evolutionery model )then to human. in this case it will be a problem for evolution if we will find several genes in one fish species that are closer to human then to the second species. right?

 

[Speedwell]

fine. but remember again my car example:

the fact that we can arrange things in hierarchy doesnt prove evolution. even if those vehicles were able to reprooduce.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

You car example is a fake. You never arrange the vehicle types in the actual chronological order of their devolopment. Why is that?

 

[bhsmte]

You car example is a fake. You never arrange the vehicle types in the actual chronological order of their devolopment. Why is that?

He forgot?

 

[Kylie]

no.

Right, so why are you imposing limits which do not exist in reality? Because you are trying to unfairly favour your own position?

but there were very few tries compare to the sequence space (this is my second part of this argument). but first we need to agree with the first part. so do you agree that if we had only about one or 2 tries it will be very unlikely to find a different functional structure?

You need to support your claim that there were very few tries compare to the sequence space.

 

[Heissonear]

Interesting, taking side route chit-chat and ignoring the topic made clear - it is impossible for natural processes to make a car, with its intricacies. And then expand on the impossibility of a car to "evolve over time by natural processes" into other type vehicles.

 

[Heissonear]

He forgot?

Main topic ignored for fruitless chit-chat.

Natural processes have not shown how they can evolve life over time any more than natural processes making a car and evolving it into other types of vehicles over time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Xianghua, the other day I was walking down the street and I could not believe it, but once again no animals popped into existence out of thin air. How can that be? There have been many millions of different animals that came into existence, so if every time it happens they pop up out of thin air, you would think somebody would see it happen sometime. We have observed new species come into existence by natural evolution, but never by popping into existence.

no. its evidence for intelligent design in the lab and not for a natural process. so bottom line i showed evidence for instantaneous creation and we still have zero evidence for evolution.

But it is not evidence for popping into existence, which is your claim.

Again, it is evidence that somebody took existing organic materials and made something. They didn't make life, but they made molecules that give us a clue as to how life may have begun. And no, it was not instantaneous. The molecules were made as the result of complex processes. I fail to see how this proves that animals regularly pop into existence out of thin air.

actually we can go by most characteristics. in this way we will get the best result. so basically all trucks will be one group (trucks) and all cars will by another group. its a basic classification.

The problem is which characteristics do you go by? In many ways a Chevy pickup is closer to a Chevy car than a Ford pickup truck.

This is the opposite of what we find in animals. We find nested groups in which multiple characteristics of each of the nested groups sort on the same grouping. For instance, mammals differ from reptiles in that they have hair, four chambered hearts, diaphragm, high metabolism rate, mammary glands, single bone for the jaw, three middle ear bones etc. All mammals have these characteristics. See http://www.austincc.edu/sziser/Biol 1413/1413 handouts/reptile vs mammals.pdf . If you divide animals by whether they have hair, or whether they have mammary glands, or whether they have 3 bones in their ears, you end up with basically the same groupings.

in this case it will be a problem for evolution if we will find several genes in one fish species that are closer to human then to the second species. right?

You asked me this question in the last post, and I said, "absolutely not". Why do you ask again?

For emphasis, this time I will say, "absolutely, absolutely not".

If you ask a third time I will say, "absolutely, absolutely, absolutely not" and keep on adding absolutelys until it finally sinks in.

Again, some fish are closer to humans then they are to other fish, for the reasons I detailed to you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Main topic ignored for fruitless chit-chat.

Natural processes have not shown how they can evolve life over time any more than natural processes making a car and evolving it into other types of vehicles over time.

... and you have proven conclusively that animals have been popping into existence out of thin air in millions of creations events over the ages?

 

[xianghua]

You need to support your claim that there were very few tries compare to the sequence space.

so if i will show you that, you will agree that it will be very unlikely to find a different new strucutre?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i dont talk about position in the genome but about the sequence space. according to evolution a tipical gene suppose to evolved from other gene by mutations. so since the sequence space is huge (means the number of possible combinations per gene is huge (4^1000). what is the chance that every functional sequence will exist near other functional (and completely different) sequence?

You are exposing your ignorance on the process of evolution again.

With this question, you are implying that gene A was supposed to evolve into gene B. That A was destined to become B. That the purpose of A was to become B.

It's a hindsight thingy that makes no sense in context of evolution.

Sure you can try and calculate the probability of how probable it was that an ancestral primate evolved into chimps and humans. But whatever number you come up with, would be meaningless. Because if not in chimps and humans, it would have just evolved into something else (or gone extinct, like most species throughout history have done).

 

[DogmaHunter]

it doesnt matter if the change is big or small. what doest matter is that many sequence are very different from each other and therefore the chance to evolve a completely different sequence is very low.

Consider this binary DNA string: 0000 0000
Each generation 1 bit changes.
Selection favours 1s over 0s.
Let's see what happens generation after generation:

Gen 1: 0000 0001
Gen 2: 0000 0011

Gen 3: 0000 0111
Gen 4: 0000 1111
Gen 5: 1000 1111
Gen 6: 1001 1111
Gen 7: 1101 1111
Gen 8: 1111 1111

The lesson of today is: when you allow for accumulation of micro-changes, overtime you will inevitably end up with something very different.​

 

[DogmaHunter]

sure. but what is the chance for that?

In a process where systems reproduce with micro-modification, where the off spring inherits the slightly modified blueprint, and where the systems need to compete with peers for limited resources?

In such a process, the chance of micro-changes accumulating over time and thereby resulting in big changes, is exactly 1 in 1

remember my example again: if we had only 2 functional sequences in a space of a billion possible sequences, what is the chance to get a new functional sequence from another one?

Your example misrepresented how evolution actually works, as I also explained.
The "purpose" of gene A is not to become gene B.
A doesn't exist "for the purpose of" changing into B.
A is not "destined" to change into B.

In reality, in the population:
- most individuals will have an unchanged A
- some individuals will have a changed A (and in each individual where it changed, it will have changed in a different way).
- Maybe some individual now has an edge over peers as a result of the change in A.
==> chances are that that individual will produce more off spring, spreading his changed A.
==> chances are that the changed A will continue spreading in the population and eventually achieve fixation.

Now all individuals have a changed A. You can call it B now, if you want.
It didn't have to be like the.

Perhaps the exact same effect could have been accomplished by changing D into C instead of A into B. Perhaps that that would even have been better!
But that isn't what happened.
What happened was a change in A and it happened to give that individual an edge.

There is no goal or intention or destiny.
There is just what works in the moment.

 

[Larniavc]

When I first got saved, I read the Bible from cover to cover in 9 months; but that was because I couldn't get enough of It.

Took me a little over six months (I think).

Did you skip the lineages?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i forgot to mention that you will have only one try.

And once again, we see how your ignorance on evolution clouds your judgement....

Evolution gets many many tries.
Every newly born individual in a population is a trial.

so what is the chance to get a functional seuqence if we know there are only about 2 functional sequences out of a billion combinations?

As I explained: 1 in 1.

 

[DogmaHunter]

fine. but remember again my car example:

The one that was demonstrated to be as false as can be a couple dozen times over?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting, taking side route chit-chat and ignoring the topic made clear - it is impossible for natural processes to make a car, with its intricacies. And then expand on the impossibility of a car to "evolve over time by natural processes" into other type vehicles.

View attachment 219976

Why would we explain the development of an object by a process that doesn't affect said object?

Evolution is a process the living things are subject to by their very nature.
To state that cars don't evolve and use that as an argument against biological evolution is .... "dishonest", to say it nicely.

 

[PsychoSarah]

first: this is just a belief and second: have you heard about orphans genes?:

Orphan gene - Wikipedia

-_- I have no idea why you think genes that are specific to a lineage would disprove the idea that all genomes are derived from an original one (FYI, I'm not even a UCA supporter, I just thought I should bring it up since it is mainstream). Especially considering that UCA doesn't demand that all precursors of modern genes had to be present in that universal common ancestor, since mutation can give rise to entirely new genes. To be blunt, with enough time, there would begin to be organisms genetically distant enough that it met the 25% similarity of organisms with 4 nucleotide DNA that are entirely unrelated, even if all organisms on the planet did arise from a single one in the past, due to the build up of mutations and how unlikely it would be for any of the original genes to be so highly conserved and important as to remain distinct indefinitely.