the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

Not so.

Yes so.

Look again at this "makes more complex objects" pathway of natural ecosystem processes.

Nature around us presently does not make more complex biological objects from present lifeforms.

Chemical reactions produce more complex molecules from simpler molecules all the time dude.

Rather, second law of thermodynamics.

Go out, look up.
See that giant fire ball of nuclear infurnus? We call it "the sun" and it feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

Like cancer of once good lifeform.

LOL!

We see decay.

The earth is not a closed system.

Nature does not show evidence of making complex objects like man through Intelligence does.

Maybe you should look a little more closely and with a bit more attention.

Every time a seed grows into a tree, you have a rise in complexity. A tree is more complex then a seed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nature does not have intelligence

Off course it doesn't. It doesn't have a brain to produce intelligence. Nore does nature require it.

Nor as you illustrate nature does not make trucks and farm tractors from cars and motorcycles.

Why would it?

Within old pastors I see rusted up cars, tractors, etc. Decay.

So?

 

[doubtingmerle]

if we have only about 3 species the number of possible trees is 6. for instance: lets call those species a, b and c. there are only 6 possible combinations: abc\acb\bca\bac\cba\cab.

Wrong. That has nothing to do with trees. Trees don't care if you mirror image the tree or rotate the branches. That is all you are doing.

Again there is only one possible unrooted tree with 3 members.

If you root the tree, that is, if you clearly define something at the root as a fourth taxa, then you have 3 possible trees.

So no, your tree with 3 members is no where near as complicated as a tree with 30. Your tree breaks down when you add more members and include the variations within the members.

You were told that repeatedly. You have never made no attempt to address it. You just ignore what you don't want to hear.

 

[Petros2015]

You were told that repeatedly. You have never made no attempt to address it. You just ignore what you don't want to hear.

Self replicating thread argument.

 

[pitabread]

if we have only about 3 species the number of possible trees is 6. for instance: lets call those species a, b and c. there are only 6 possible combinations: abc\acb\bca\bac\cba\cab.

What you are describing isn't trees, but rather the number of permutations of a group of items (i.e. how many different ways can a list of items be arranged). The number of permutations of N items is simply N! (N-factorial). In which case 3! = 6.

For a tree, however, the formulas used are from the site I previously linked:Rooted vs Unrooted Trees

For 3 taxa you only have possibilities of 1 unrooted tree or 3 rooted trees.

 

[pitabread]

since a car can be in many colors this is a wrong conclusion. now, how it has any relevance to the watch argument?

A false equivalence fallacy occurs when one assumes that since two objects are similar or identical in one respect therefore they are similar or identical in all respects. As you just pointed out with the car example this isn't necessarily the case.

Let's try another example:

1) An electric motor is a thing that uses energy to generate spin. A electric motor is a manufactured object.

2) A bacterial flagellum is a thing that uses energy to generate spin. Therefore, a bacterial flagellum is a manufactured object.

Did you spot the logical error in this one?

 

[Ophiolite]

You are free to believe what you believe, as I am to believe what I believe. My comments are to the lurkers, at their level.

I've found that the best way for a gunfighter to avoid being called out is to avoid wearing his guns. This is a Christian site. I will get "into the weeds" on Christian issues. I'll not do the same with science issues - even when goaded.

I have failed to make myself clear, to the point you view my response as goading. I shall try again. This is the sequence of my thoughts:
1. You make a declaration expression an opinion about the findings of science.
2. You then claim that you do not get into discussions of science on this forum.
3. You repeat this claim.

If 2 and 3 are valid I am simply asking, why did you make the intial statement, thereby initiating a discussion on science in this forum? I would appreciate your answer so I can better understand your position. If there is something unclear about my question please point to it and ask for clarification.

 

[xianghua]

Wrong. That has nothing to do with trees. Trees don't care if you mirror image the tree or rotate the branches. That is all you are doing.

but those are different trees. so what you are talking about?

 

[xianghua]

What you are describing isn't trees, but rather the number of permutations of a group of items

but those are different trees.

 

[xianghua]

A false equivalence fallacy occurs when one assumes that since two objects are similar or identical in one respect therefore they are similar or identical in all respects. As you just pointed out with the car example this isn't necessarily the case.

Let's try another example:

1) An electric motor is a thing that uses energy to generate spin. A electric motor is a manufactured object.

2) A bacterial flagellum is a thing that uses energy to generate spin. Therefore, a bacterial flagellum is a manufactured object.

Did you spot the logical error in this one?

since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are the product of design- then the flagellum is designed too.

 

[VirOptimus]

since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are the product of design- then the flagellum is designed too.

No, that is faulty logic.

 

[pitabread]

but those are different trees.

What you listed were ordered sequences of items, not actual trees.

An ordered sequence is simply an arrangement of items in a particular order. But a tree is an arrangement of items that describes the relationships between the respective items. In the latter case, it's the nodes connecting the items which matter. With just a sequence of items as you listed, there are no nodes.

 

[pitabread]

since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are the product of design- then the flagellum is designed too.

You just made the False Equivalence fallacy. It's a logical error.

I'm curious, you clearly recognized the logical error with the car example. Why can't you recognize the same error with the flagellum example?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm curious, you clearly recognized the logical error with the car example. Why can't you recognize the same error with the flagellum example?

it seems it is difficult to get someone to recognize something when his religion requires him to not recognize it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but those are different trees. so what you are talking about?

Wrong.

There is only one unrooted tree you can draw with 3 taxa. It basically consists of a single point in the middle with 3 spokes leading out to the three taxa. You can mirror imagine the whole thing, bend any line you want, rotate the direction of any line, etc but it is all still the same tree, representing the exact same physical relationship.

If you want to add a root you can attach the root off any of the 3 branches. But then you need to define precisely what the root is, and in effect that becomes a tree with 4 taxa.

If you think you can make 2 different unrooted trees with 3 taxa that are not just 2 different ways of illustrating the same thing, please show us what those 2 trees would look like.

 

[doubtingmerle]

since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are the product of design- then the flagellum is designed too.

So if I knew only three Indians, and those three Indians were walking single file, then I could conclude that all Indians always walk single file?

Interesting. I didn't realize that was logically valid.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are the product of design- then the flagellum is designed too.

1. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are man made- then the flagellum is man made too
2. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are made of non-natural materials- then the flagellum is made of non-natural materials too

Do you see anything wrong with those statements?

 

[xianghua]

What you listed were ordered sequences of items, not actual trees.

An ordered sequence is simply an arrangement of items in a particular order. But a tree is an arrangement of items that describes the relationships between the respective items. In the latter case, it's the nodes connecting the items which matter. With just a sequence of items as you listed, there are no nodes.

see my example below.

 

[xianghua]

You just made the False Equivalence fallacy. It's a logical error.

I'm curious, you clearly recognized the logical error with the car example. Why can't you recognize the same error with the flagellum example?

can you point what is the logical error here? to show its a logical error you need to prove that a flagellum can evolve naturlaly. but you cant.

 

[xianghua]

Wrong.

There is only one unrooted tree you can draw with 3 taxa. It basically consists of a single point in the middle with 3 spokes leading out to the three taxa. You can mirror imagine the whole thing, bend any line you want, rotate the direction of any line, etc but it is all still the same tree, representing the exact same physical relationship.

If you want to add a root you can attach the root off any of the 3 branches. But then you need to define precisely what the root is, and in effect that becomes a tree with 4 taxa.

If you think you can make 2 different unrooted trees with 3 taxa that are not just 2 different ways of illustrating the same thing, please show us what those 2 trees would look like.

whats wrong? maybe an image will help here. this is the first possible tree among 3 different species:

do you agree?