the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

Okay I'll give one last post on this because it's not about science any more...it's about you and your beliefs.

No. It's about YOU and YOUR (religious) beliefs.

We're not the ones who are quoting religious books and pretending that they are a valid argument against established scientific theories.

(And the others who seem to only wish to argue, not learn or study new things.)

Your faith is not in God nor is it in science from what you post. You are educated, one way or another, and do not appear to be able to grasp the facts of truth. It is your choice...but believers are warned to beware of those "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth"... and "professing to be wise they became fools." I will pray that you are open to God's wooing and put your faith in Him rather than to the "science" you cling. He has laid it all out in His Word, whatever you doubt, but you will not understand it until you allow the Holy Spirit to give you such knowledge through accepting God's love for you. Just accept His love. What's so hard about that? Peace.

See? Just religious preaching. Nothing else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As far as science goes. Anything out of the present nature fishbowl is greek to them.

Fortunately, experience shows us that science works... and magic doesn't (except for the fake magic of illusion, deception, conjuring, legerdemain, prestidigitation, and hocus-pocus).

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. Your example of car relationships, is invented out of thin air.

True, he invented his car relationships out of thin air, but that seems to be his point--that he can invent patterns of machines that are mathematically just as valid as true hierarchical trees. He has been shown repeatedly that this is wrong. Pitabread has demonstrated that his "taxa" do not form a nested hierarchy with anywhere near statistical significance. And we have shown that simple comparisons of the trees formed show they are very different.

The problem is not that xianghua has not been told. The problem is that he ignores what he does not want to hear.

 

[dad]

Fortunately, experience shows us that science works... and magic doesn't (except for the fake magic of illusion, deception, conjuring, legerdemain, prestidigitation, and hocus-pocus).

The origins hokey pokey they tack onto 'science' is not even magic. It is manufactured fantasy, purposely preached as something else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree that evolution is not falsifiable because it is not a true theory!

Karl Popper found on the basis of Godel's Incompleteness theorems that All scientific theories must be falsifiable.

This is just wrong. Popper didn't base his ideas on falsifiability on Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. It's now generally acknowledged that although falsifiability makes a stronger case for testable hypotheses/theories than induction alone, it's rather naive to make it an absolute requirement of scientific theories.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are specific to formal axiomatic systems (maths/logic), not informal propositions about states of affairs in the world (science).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The origins hokey pokey they tack onto 'science' is not even magic. It is manufactured fantasy, purposely preached as something else.

You wish. The origins hypotheses are, as the name suggests, hypotheses - proposed explanations for phenomena, based on existing knowledge. Some are considered scientific because they are testable; some considered scientific in principle because they are testable in principle. Some are not yet considered scientific because we don't know if they are, in principle, testable.

What distinguishes the last group from pure fantasy is that they are speculative ideas based on, or predicted by, known physics; i.e. theoretically possible, not contradictory to known physics.

 

[tas8831]

I gave proof that even Darwin himself said that if there was found to be irreducible complexity---just one--- that his idea of how it all began would be false.

Odd... I just searched Darwin Online , and the phrase "irreducible complexity" did not come up once.

Modern (2016?) science of the genome (DNA) has shown this.

Weird. I taught Genetics at the college level 4 or 5 times over the past few years, and I never heard of this.


Can you give us an explanation for how the 'science of the genome' has shown this?
In your own words?

 

[xianghua]

the flagellum doesn't have any signs of manufacturing, no.

why not? its look like a spinning motor made by human.

 

[xianghua]

No, evolution is falsifiable, even though you try to pretend it isn't, and make up false examples.

so how we cant falsify evolution? give me an example.

 

[Speedwell]

so how we cant falsify evolution? give me an example.

We have given you several. The one I particularly remember is the example of bunny rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata. Your response was that they would just be written off as "convergent evolution." Which, as I think you know, is false.

 

[xianghua]

My results were thus:

1) Vehicles didn't sort themselves into the perfect categories you claimed.​

so a bicylce isnt colser to another bicylce then to a truck? and a car isnt colser to another car then to an airplane?

In fact, there is a lot of overlap between different vehicle types.

as we see with the turtle phylogeny above with about 24 traits.


​

1) The article you cited is almost 20 years old. So it's not talking about the "current" phylogeny anymore.

actually i refer to another new data which contradict that data (as far as i remember).

3) That particular article doesn't mention anything regarding statistical significance and the respective trees in question.

your "statistical significance" is about the numbmer of traits which agree with the phylogeny. but as we can see- even when we use many traits we can get a wrong tree. check also this article:

[1709.07588] Abandon Statistical Significance

 

[xianghua]

No it is not the same thing. With turtles it is the order of two nodes that is in question. The rest is well established. With your tree, as soon as you split it up into a significant number of taxa, the entire tree loses all statistical significance.

we are talking about 24 traits when pitabread only used 14 to reject my tree.

 

[Speedwell]

why not? its look like a spinning motor made by human.

Where is your evidence that it was made by a human? Where is your evidence of refined metals, plastics and other non-natural materials? Where is your evidence of tool and molding marks? Where are the nameplates and serial numbers?

"Looks like a motor" is not evidence of design.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we are talking about 24 traits when pitabread only used 14 to reject my tree.

The traits do not destroy the entire tree. They just call into question the order of two nodes.

The car tree is full of inconsistencies throughout.

 

[pitabread]

we are talking about 24 traits when pitabread only used 14 to reject my tree.

You posted a claim about what you would expect to happen if one created a phylogenetic tree based on vehicles like cars and trucks. I tested it and it didn't work out.

What I don't understand is why you haven't tested this yourself. It seems more prudent that if you're going to claim something, you should at least test that claim first. Especially since the software to do so is free. All it takes is a little bit of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why not?

You made the claim, you support your claim.

its look like a spinning motor made by human.

"it looks like...to me" is not an argument.

 

[dad]

You wish. The origins hypotheses are, as the name suggests, hypotheses - proposed explanations for phenomena, based on existing knowledge.

They are explanations routinely cited as fact in a multitude of books, shows, classes, etc. The origins claims are not based on knowledge, but are based on a belief in a same nature in the past, used for all models. That is religion, not knowledge.

Some are considered scientific because they are testable; some considered scientific in principle because they are testable in principle.

None of the origins issues science purportedly covers are testable, but belief based entirely. Their idea of testing some claim about stars might be to run a fishbowl computer program, to come up with the most likely scenario a star exploded or did something, based on fishbowl physics and time and rules. r they might run the current genetics through, assuming it was always the same to cook up branches and times trees etc. They might test how material NOW decays, and how long it takes, to cook up times for some imagined same state nightmare godless past earth.

Some are not yet considered scientific because we don't know if they are, in principle, testable.

let's get off the cloud and get down where the rubber meets the road. We are not talking about science i general, where we do have things testable, and real. The only issue is origins so called science pi in the sky alternate creation stories. Things that are all imaginary and modeled on belief based methods and premises.

What distinguishes the last group from pure fantasy is that they are speculative ideas based on, or predicted by, known physics; i.e. theoretically possible, not contradictory to known physics.

The only way origin models are theoretically possible is if we remove God the creator, and remake the universe in man's image and godless little two bit belief systems.

 

[doubtingmerle]

check also this article:

[1709.07588] Abandon Statistical Significance

Let me guess: You never read that article, did you? Because it certainly doesn't support your claim.

We have a problem here. You don't seem to have an attention span for anything longer than a tweet. You read only the title and stop. Part of the problem is probably a language barrier, but it is a quandary how to address you. I can respond in tweet size bites, but how does one address complex issues with a tweet (without looking like a dimwit president ). But when I respond at length, you don't even read it.

There may be some lurkers who read this, even though you won't, so here goes. Xianghua's claim is that a made up tree of vehicles is as valid as real phylogenetic trees. It has been shown that when you do that, the statistical significance is near p=1, that is, the tree generated is little better than a tree generated by chance. Compare that with the many real trees, that consistently show the probability that this was chance at well under 0.5%. And no, the article he quotes certainly does not say this does not matter, as xianghua claims. Rather, the article addresses a particular problem that medical studies often have unclear statistical significance, so the bar is lowered so the studies tend to be accepted with p near 0.05. This low threshold makes problems, and there is debate on what to do about it. The authors of this study recommend that other factors should be considered, and to let the ridgid bar of 0.05 vary. Nowhere do they hint that a tree like xianghuas should be accepted at p=1. Nowhere do they suggest that we ignore the significant p values of real trees.

Unfortunately the title exaggerates what the article says, and that is unfortunate in a Twitter world, where many lose interest at the 255th character. But if you take the time to actually read it, there is a lot of good thought there.

But I don't suppose xianghua will ever read that link or this post.

 

[Speedwell]

The only way origin models are theoretically possible is if we remove God the creator, and remake the universe in man's image and godless little two bit belief systems.

That is just plain false and you know it. If you are not going to be hnest in your arguments, why should we take you seriously?

 

[dad]

That is just plain false and you know it. If you are not going to be hnest in your arguments, why should we take you seriously?

That is true whether you know it or not.

Let's look at it.

"The only way origin models are theoretically possible is if we remove God the creator, and remake the universe in man's image and godless little .. belief systems."

The models of science are absent of God and creation. Now if we add creation and God, then the models of science no longer hold any credibility. The models of origins and the universe are made from man's wisdom and beliefs. Beliefs like nature always having been the same, or time being the same in all the universe. It is manifestly clear that in any area of the origins debate, science cannot use anything but belief. They believe that man descended, for example via the process of evolution from simple life forms. Ask them how they know that the evolution started anywhere but from the created kinds, and we descend into a faith based frenzy of fearful fables and fantasies.

If Adam did not bring sin and death into the world as the bible says, then where did they come from...a comet?