the self replicating watch argument

[iEye]

I don't choose a target. The process of evolution has no long term target beyond the increased fitness of the next generation.

Time is the longest distance between two places.
Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie

 

[xianghua]

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.

lets check both scenarios. first: we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching new species evolve in real time

so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years.

one of the largest family on earth is the curculionidae which contain almost 100,000 species. so if we start with 2 species then after about one generation of a speciation event (100 years) we will get 4 different species. and after another generation of speciation we will get 8 and so on. so we only need about less then 20 generation of speciation to get more then 100,000 different species (2^20) . or about 2000 years. if you see any problem note me and we will continue.

 

[xianghua]

Except a Google search isn't random.

i type the word "truck" without any connection to the word "footstep". so those are indeed random images considering foorstep.

This is kind of like saying all you need to do to fly to the Moon is build a rocket ship out of popsicle sticks.

You're so out of your depth here you don't even know why you are wrong and how to fix it. Like our prior discussions, this is going absolutely nowhere.

Back on the ignore list you go.

i ask very simple question and you ignore it. so here is again: 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]

thats how evolution works

but since evolution has no target its not the same at all. and this is why genetic algorithm cant represent a real scenario.

 

[xianghua]

we have the fossil record that shows the progression from fish species upwards.

progression like this one?:

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

 

[xianghua]

We have animals like dolphins that don't smell using same genes have genes for smelling in air though they don't actually work.

so if i will show you a reasonable explanation for the existence of this trait under the design model, you will agree that the design model is better since it can make a prediction about this trait?

among other things, we have alot of genes and so do every other animal that doesn't make sense without evolution. Why would god use all the genes for a ape and then turn them off, it's not like he has limited resources or intelect.

we can discuss about that too. but lets start with your example above.

 

[iEye]

What is compassion? And how did it evolve? In this review, we integrate three evolutionary arguments that converge on the hypothesis that compassion evolved as a distinct affective experience whose primary function is to facilitate cooperation and protection of the weak and those who suffer. Our empirical review reveals compassion to have distinct appraisal processes attuned to undeserved suffering, distinct signaling behavior related to caregiving patterns of touch, posture, and vocalization, and a phenomenological experience and physiological response that orients the individual to social approach. This response profile of compassion differs from those of distress, sadness, and love, suggesting that compassion is indeed a distinct emotion. We conclude by considering how compassion shapes moral judgment and action, how it varies across different cultures, and how it may engage specific patterns of neural activation, as well as emerging directions of research.
Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis and Empirical Review

 

[xianghua]

Trucks are similar to each other because they are built for hauling big loads. That generally means bigger tires and engines, and a truck bed.

Again, trucks are defined as vehicles to carry heavy loads, and thus all have designs to carry heavy loads. So you are not comparing multiple independent features. The features that trucks have in common over cars can all be determined by four words, "designed for heavy loads".

we can say the same for fishes and mammals. a fish is more similar to other fish then to a mammal since both have designs suited for marine environment.

Dolphins have the features of placental mammals, such as mammary glands, hair, three bones in their ear, and live birth.

actually shark can do that too (live birth) and many shark also have a placenta:

Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. I. Morphology and cellular transport at the fetal attachment site. - PubMed - NCBI

so again your nested hierarchy is falling apart.

Yes, of course, having a placenta and live birth are inherited traits for all placental mammals. It could easily be that a dolphin-like creature would reproduce like tunas. But they don't, because they are placental mammals, and so they reproduce that way.

see above. its simply wrong since even according to evolution placenta suppose to evolve by convergent evolution. this fact alone break the suppose hierarchy. so again: when we find a strcture that doesnt fit with the hierarchy they just "solve" it by convergent evolution. some mammals like the platypus actually laying eggs. so by this logic human suppose to be colser to shark then to the platypus. an evolutionery absurd.

Sure. That does not refute the point that, since trucks are built to carry heavy loads, by definition they tend to have big wheels and big engines, and thus usually cabs that sit high. So the trait to have a high cab is not independent of being designed for carrying heavy loads.

the fact that even a car can has large wheels prove that this trait is independent.

 

[iEye]

Animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.[2][3] In humans, consciousness has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, qualia, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[4]

Collective consciousness, collective conscience, or collective conscious (French: conscience collective) is the set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society.[1] The term was introduced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his Division of Labour in Society in 1893.

The basic meaning of the Greek word ψυχή (psyche) was "life" in the sense of "breath", formed from the verb ψύχω (psycho, "to blow"). Derived meanings included "spirit", "soul", "ghost", and ultimately "self" in the sense of "conscious personality" or "psyche".[2][3]

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

 

[xianghua]

What about them?

if we go back to axe work on the 150 aa long protein: he conclude that one in every 10^77 we will get that function. so the chance to get this specific function again is about 10^77. do you agree?

Don't know how you get that from me mentioning how a SINGLE FIN could acquire the ability to move rather than being a static structure from one mutation. After all, having extra muscles or missing a few is actually rather common.

Your entire line of thought is bunk because the capacity to move predates multicellular organisms. That is, there is no reason that the first multicellular organism wouldn't have had the capacity for movement to begin with. You act as if the capacity to move has to independently evolve over and over for no apparent reason, as if how a single cell moves can't possibly contribute to the genes that allow a multicellular organism to move. Heck, even sea sponges, which don't have a nervous system or muscles, have the capacity to move. It becomes more complex over time, stop acting as if the movement had to start with the fish.

but a bacteria has a different mechanism for moving. so we need to explain how such a traits can evolve stepwise.

 

[xianghua]

Seriously, what is your obsession with living and inanimate objects being the same?
Your argument is really dumb, as I've said in one of your many other arguments because it be used so easily for design by a human instead of a god. That's the best I've found to reveal the holes in your argument.

i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.

 

[Speedwell]

i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.

No, those are your criteria. We do not share them. Having living traits does not rule out design. In fact, design can never be ruled out--it just cannot always be proven to be present.

And that bugs you, I imagine. You can't rule out design in a natural object, you just can't prove it's there.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[loveofourlord]

but since evolution has no target its not the same at all. and this is why genetic algorithm cant represent a real scenario.

it does though, it's just set by nature, the zebra that is faster has higher chance to survive, so thats the goal there, a zebra that can dodge better another example,a toxin that can kill a predatory snake better on a salamander, vs the snakes ability to survive the toxins and eat it safley.

the algorythem has a more defined goal, but so does evolution in the basic terms. The goal to survive, and things that survive better pass those things on more likly.

 

[loveofourlord]

so if i will show you a reasonable explanation for the existence of this trait under the design model, you will agree that the design model is better since it can make a prediction about this trait?




we can discuss about that too. but lets start with your example above.

giving a reasonable explanation isn't evidence, despiste what creationists and cdesign prononents think, disproving evolution, or even one facet doesn't prove creationism. If there are reasons for dolphins to have air scent, then thats something evolution would use, but there is no reason for say 4% of the human genes to be devoted to scent when we can't use the. Even less so, if they serve no purpose on a dolphin.

Again thats like having a parts from a car still in the truck even if they arn't used, they are just left over parts.

 

[loveofourlord]

if we go back to axe work on the 150 aa long protein: he conclude that one in every 10^77 we will get that function. so the chance to get this specific function again is about 10^77. do you agree?





but a bacteria has a different mechanism for moving. so we need to explain how such a traits can evolve stepwise.

Funny we've done that before. There was the e-coli experiment where the ability to use a different source of energy happened multiple times, they found that the bacteria in one group was using it, went back to before it showed up and let them evolve again and it happened again. So it's not like it's impossible, and generally once life is there, most genes are just improving whats already there.

Take the platypus venom, it's a gene duplication of a imune system gene that mutated, same with snake venom though a different gene. the venom gland in snakes is actually a saliva gland that in some precursor lizards started producing venom and we can see this in living lizards like Komodo dragon and bearded I think it is. you could argue god started abiogenesis, but there is nothing amazing about how genes we have got here.

The math on such things is stupid, because it's the chance of it happening once, it doesn't calculate things like delitarious mutations don't survive long generally, or that neutral genes such as the e-coli experiment above can build over time towards something beneficial.

There is other experiments where they knock out the ability for some bacteria to move by breaking a important gene, leave them in a place with food, but a large gap towards other food when that runs out and surprise surprise we see them move, even though the gene for movement was broken, and it wasn't fixing the broken gene, it was using a new novel way around the broken gene.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.

Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?
How was it made? A watch is a human concept, even if it was found in nature, it would follow evolutionary processes and is not an evidence for design just because of similarity in morphology. Read up on analogous organs. Seriously, do it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?
How was it made? A watch is a human concept, even if it was found in nature, it would follow evolutionary processes and is not an evidence for design just because of similarity in morphology. Read up on analogous organs. Seriously, do it.

and even as I said, proving one instance of design, doesn't then prove that everything is designed.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

and even as I said, proving one instance of design, doesn't then prove that everything is designed.

True, and that watch doesn't even prove design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i ask very simple question and you ignore it.

Hey man, if you get to ignore the many, many, many, MANY times that your nonsense was corrected, then we get to ignore you repeating those very same falsehoods.