the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

2. It would need to be self replicating with error, this is the key part of evolution, the errors that crop up and build over time, with the filters to edit out, fatal, flawed, less useful errors. And something to allow beneficial mutations, like in example 1, some reason why being 0.000001% more acurate would allow it to survive better.

ok. i have at least 2 problems with that possibility:

1) we have no evidence for such evolution. designed ot not.
2) even if we had a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into something complex like a watch or a robot. because we know that a robot or a watch cant evolve from a self replicating molecule.

 

[xianghua]

-_- they aren't, but functional genes which were derived from accidental copies of the same gene being added to the genome and subsequently acquiring mutations over time generally are most often in close proximity, because when DNA replication makes the error of replicating a gene sequence multiple times when it should have only done it once, those extra copies are almost always very close to the original one.

That is, if genes X, Y, and Z were all originally excess copies of gene A, they'll most likely be physically near gene A. They won't necessarily be near gene B, which is an unrelated gene. Plus, errors that result in excess noncoding regions can make related genes physically drift farther apart over time.

so eventually they indneed very different from each other. so again :what make you think that all functional sequences can be reach from other functional sequence? it will be possible only if they exist near each other but we know that many are very diffierent in both structure and sequence.

Yes, you deviated into referencing a different source entirely. Are you not going to finish addressing your 2008 source that claims that all functional regions, just due to time passage, have come into existence at some point within the genomes of life on this planet?

as i said: he deal with small proteins and made some problematic assumptions like using only 2 kinds of amino acids instead of 20 or even 10 and deal only with bacteria.

No, but I can add parts which retain that the structure has SOME function (that doesn't even have to be directly related to movement) and that by the end that function will be that of a hand.

how you can make a fish tail to move by adding a single part?

 

[pitabread]

remember that we talking about
general situation and not about the exceptional.

In order to make a claim about the "general situation", you'd need to do a proper survey of manufactured vehicles. Simply running a google search for truck images doesn't tell us anything in that regard. It's just lazy.

so there is nested hierarchy in cars.

Not only have you failed to demonstrate this you appear to have no idea why you've failed to demonstrate this because you have no idea how phylogenetic trees are constructed. Hint: it's not with Microsoft Paint.

In order to really test this you'd need to do the following:

1. Determine a representative sample of whatever objects you are comparing.
2. Construct a list of specific features from those objects including how they are specifically measured (ideally the more features the better).
3. Compile the measurements from each specific object and translate it into some sort of "genome" for the specific objects. Essentially this means compiling a set of data on which to derive the tree. When I ask you for your data set, this is what I'm asking for.
4. Run the compiled data through an algorithm to create the phylogenetic tree. Ideally you want to do this multiple times with different feature subsets to generate multiple trees.
5. Finally test the resultant trees to see if there is any sort of congruence between them. This will determine is there is any statistical significance in the results.
6. Then analyze the results and draw your conclusions.

Along each step of the way you'd want to properly document everything and publish it so that others can also examine and test your methods and results.

If you can do all of the above, then and only then can you start making claims regarding the phylogenetic tree construction of artificial objects.

So how about it? Are you up the challenge?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so eventually they indneed very different from each other. so again :what make you think that all functional sequences can be reach from other functional sequence?

I never made that claim. All I have said is that genes that produce proteins with different functions can arise via copies of already existing genes mutating. I'd even say that's the most common way for new genes to form. I would never claim that it was the way all genes formed, so whether or not all genes could form that way is irrelevant.

it will be possible only if they exist near each other but we know that many are very diffierent in both structure and sequence.

1. I said that they USUALLY are physically close to each other in the sequence. Not always. When the replication mechanisms majorly mess up and duplicate entire sections of chromosomes or even entire chromosomes, the copies won't be physically near the original gene sequence at all.
2. I mentioned that as mutations build up, those genes derived from a copy of one will become less and less similar to their gene of origin. I never placed a limit to that; with enough time, genes that share origins can become so different that we wouldn't be able to recognize their shared origin.
3. You seem to be assuming that life started out with just 1 gene. This has no basis whatsoever, and evidence suggests the opposite, considering that the lipid bubbles in abiogensis experiments encapsulate many strands of RNA, not just 1, at a time.

as i said: he deal with small proteins and made some problematic assumptions like using only 2 kinds of amino acids instead of 20 or even 10 and deal only with bacteria.

Wow, he actually didn't do that. Rather, he suggested that his scope would cover functional protein regions that had a variety of less than 16 different amino acids. Most proteins don't contain all 20, which is also mentioned. He evaluated bacteria as the primary source of genetic variation in the history of the planet, which I agree is erroneous given that eukaryotes have very different mutation trends than bacteria do, but it only makes his scope of mutations over time smaller, not the number of functional regions possible. What limits that is the fact that we've discovered more functional regions between when that was published and now. Even so, if you thought this source was so fundamentally flawed, why'd you try to use it to begin with?

how you can make a fish tail to move by adding a single part?

Movement precedes being multicellular. The fish had most of the tools for motion long before being a multicellular organism; you are unintentionally subtracting parts that the fish started out with. But hey, if that single part is a muscle...

 

[dad]

im not sure about that. if we assume that all those species already exist in the beginning then we dont need to explain how they formed in about 4500 years.

Yes we do, unless they were all on the ark. Creation was long before the flood, so the only creatures on earth alive were on that boat.

It makes more sense to see the flood in the different nature of the past, where evolving happened fast.

 

[loveofourlord]

ok. i have at least 2 problems with that possibility:

1) we have no evidence for such evolution. designed ot not.
2) even if we had a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into something complex like a watch or a robot. because we know that a robot or a watch cant evolve from a self replicating molecule.

1. we do, evolution is entirly based upon replication with errors, and you can prove it by comparing your DNA with your parents, it will be a 49.99% match to each, but there will be some errors, and changes, either delections, insertions, duplications and such, those errors add up over time, making small changes to some of your genes in each generation, some might be neutral or beneficial.

2. I was going by your example of self replicating organic watches, just duplicating isn't going to do anything, it's the errors in it that matter. Wether put there by a designer or evoled naturally, for it to be comparable to evolution there have to be errors, and some confered benefit or mechanism to determine better watch design.

 

[pitabread]

2) even if we had a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into something complex like a watch or a robot. because we know that a robot or a watch cant evolve from a self replicating molecule.

This is circular reasoning, yet another fallacy: Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

It's also a rather naive statement given what we know about genetic algorithms and the ability to evolve complexity from basic rule sets. Again, this has been explained before.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you actually do the same when you clasify fishes, mammales, reptiles ect.

Again, we are using many characteristics when looking at nested hierarchy. You are basically looking at one characteristic in your vehicle hierarchies-- carrying capacity. You are sorting on one variable. We are grouping on many.

When all mammals have those three bones in their ears and no reptiles do, that has nothing to do with necessity to do a function. Both ear designs work fine. Mammals have an evolutionary history that gave them three otherwise unused bones that they use in the ear. Reptiles don't.

That is far different from bigger trucks having more or bigger wheels, which is a requirement for heavy loads.

 

[xianghua]

In order to make a claim about the "general situation", you'd need to do a proper survey of manufactured vehicles. Simply running a google search for truck images doesn't tell us anything in that regard. It's just lazy.

since those are random images its actually represent an objective data. so we can say that most trucks have this footsteps. try to look at random trucks in the street and you will see the same pattern.

So how about it? Are you up the challenge?

actually all i need to do is to check for most traits and see what we will get. do you agree for instance that a tipical fighter jet will be more similar in general to other fighter jet then to a car?

 

[xianghua]

1. I said that they USUALLY are physically close to each other in the sequence. Not always.

fine. so what about all those different structures? we need to believe that all of them were near each other at a sequence space of about 4^1000 possibilities.

Even so, if you thought this source was so fundamentally flawed, why'd you try to use it to begin with?

i actually bring it as a reference for the number of tries since earth formation if you remember.

Movement precedes being multicellular. The fish had most of the tools for motion long before being a multicellular organism; you are unintentionally subtracting parts that the fish started out with. But hey, if that single part is a muscle...

are you saying that we only need to add a single part, and from a non moving fish we will get a moving fish?

 

[xianghua]

Yes we do, unless they were all on the ark.

and what the problem with that? are you saying that there isnt enough place in the ark for all living species?

 

[xianghua]

This is circular reasoning, yet another fallacy: Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

It's also a rather naive statement given what we know about genetic algorithms and the ability to evolve complexity from basic rule sets. Again, this has been explained before.

genetic algorithm actually use a target, so every correct step toward the target will reserve.

 

[Skreeper]

and what the problem with that? are you saying that there isnt enough place in the ark for all living species?

Of course there isn't. Do you know many species there are and how big a boat would have to be to hold every single species?

 

[Speedwell]

genetic algorithm actually use a target,

What target is that?

 

[xianghua]

1. we do, evolution is entirly based upon replication with errors, and you can prove it by comparing your DNA with your parents, it will be a 49.99% match to each, but there will be some errors, and changes, either delections, insertions, duplications and such, those errors add up over time, making small changes to some of your genes in each generation, some might be neutral or beneficial.

ok. according to evolution a fish evolved into a human. can we prove such a claim?

2. I was going by your example of self replicating organic watches, just duplicating isn't going to do anything, it's the errors in it that matter. Wether put there by a designer or evoled naturally, for it to be comparable to evolution there have to be errors, and some confered benefit or mechanism to determine better watch design.

sure. so say that we start with a self replicating matter. how we will get a watch by stepwise? what will be the first step?

 

[dad]

and what the problem with that? are you saying that there isnt enough place in the ark for all living species?

Yes. Over 30 species of tigers, 2 of elephants, etc etc basically millions of species. Each needs an area.

I think it makes more sense to assume God only called the created original kinds. Not the various adaptations. Likewise, after the flood the kinds speciated.

 

[xianghua]

Again, we are using many characteristics when looking at nested hierarchy. You are basically looking at one characteristic in your vehicle hierarchies-- carrying capacity. You are sorting on one variable. We are grouping on many.

actually i did it too. trucks in general are more similar to each other then to cars. we are talking about many traits and not just one or two.

When all mammals have those three bones in their ears and no reptiles do, that has nothing to do with necessity to do a function.

all placental mammals shared a placenta too. are you saying that this is the product of a common descent too?

That is far different from bigger trucks having more or bigger wheels, which is a requirement for heavy loads.

some cars actually have big wheels too (monster vehicles for instance).

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this structure cant evolve stepwise.

Yes, that is correct.

Cars, planes and other non-biological non-living things, can not evolve stepwise according to the biological process of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Irrelevant. Linnaeus attributed the pattern to creation.

People can attribute anything to just about anything, including things that only exist in their imagination.

The thing about evolution is, that there is no attributing. Instead, predictions flow naturally from the model. One of those predictions, is the nested hierarchy.

Show us exactly in what way evolution better explains it?

I just did....

You can arbitrarily attribute it to creation (which actually means that you simply claim that god-did-it).

But in context of evolution, it is not arbitrary nore is it "attributed".
It is predicted by the very nature of the model/process. As in: if it turns out that the nested hierarchy does not exist, then evolution is incorrect.

But if the nested hierarchy does not exist, it wouldn't change anything to your god-did-it-model. Instead, whatever pattern that does exist at that point, would simply arbitrarily be attributed again to this "god-did-it-model" nonetheless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok. even if its true remember that we are talking about a single designer. we also talking about modern cars. i think that both facts will fit with the hierarchy that i have showed above. im sure that some companies have made cars first, then vans and then trucks.

Translation: "I'm right, even if I'm shown to be utterly incorrect!!!"