the self replicating watch argument

[Bugeyedcreepy]

...but my reference was to the mass murders which took place on European soil in both Nazi Germany and the Communist countries, especially in the former Soviet Union (where my own ancestors were from). So, no, it's like I said: I wasn't distinguishing any one nationality from another. I was trying to illustrate the point that when nations forget about God, they soon turn into bloodthirsty killers of human beings, as historical facts bear strong witness.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic carrying out his final solution on the Jews.... so tell me, what does "Gott Mit Uns" translate to? From Five things you probably didn't know about World War II Germany - History Alive :

The German army had Chaplains
I’ve seen first-hand the expressions of shock and disbelief when people see a man dressed, not only in a German uniform, but in the uniform of a Wehrmacht Chaplain. This is quickly followed by comments such as, ‘The Germans didn’t believe in God’ or ‘The Germans weren’t religious’. This is false. During the 30s and 40s, 95% of the German population were Christian, and during that time many Wehrmacht soldiers continued to belong to their churches. Even on their uniform, their belt buckles were inscribed with ‘Gott mit uns’, which translates to ‘God is with us’. Germany had a strong tradition of appointing Catholic field Chaplains in the army, and this continued throughout the Second World War. Hundreds of photos exist of German soldiers participating in field services conducted by Chaplains, and many civilian accounts exist of German soldiers taking part in mass at the local church.​

The Irony further down about Operation Paperclip too...:

Operation Paperclip
Following the conclusion of the Second World War, many people believed it was the US that led the world’s technological advancement. This may or may not be true, but any and all success and progress that the US had following the war was because of one thing – German scientists. Nazi Germany was the pioneer in innovative technology such as, jet fighters and rocket science and while this may have come too late to help them in the war, the US was desperate to acquire this knowledge. The process of retrieving this knowledge came to be known as Operation Paperclip, a covert operation launched in 1945 with the aim of recruiting as many German scientists, technicians and engineers as possible before the Russians. Operation Paperclip was tremendously successful, with over 1500 scientists recruited, transported and employed in the US. In fact, most of the research relating to the Saturn V rockets and the Apollo spacecraft, came from Wernher von Braun, the scientist who had designed the V1 and V2 rockets.
​

... if only fundamentalists knew why scientists wish they didn't try to interfere so much with science and critical thinking in public education... It's because of the value it has to progress and technology, the US is losing that battle, I'm afraid...

Well, God does not Love or value self more than others, but, rather, Loves others as He Loves Himself. Since we are offered grace as means by which we can become as God is (i.e. loving others as we love ourselves), why would we reject that grace and not become as God is?

Unless of course you pray to another God, or no god at all... then like the Caananites, God might love you, your family, even your infants and livestock to a vicious and grizzly death.

but it can evolve since we are talking about self replicating molecule. unless you dont believe in evolution?

Cars don't have DNA of their own.

so a car that can make a baby car can evolve naturally?

Cars don't have babies.

The source that supports this claim is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is the Body of Christ.

There's a body to examine? Where can we see it? That would settle everything once and for all!

Hitler was also an atheist, especially in practice. There are alleged Christians who also do not believe in God, even though they may think that they do. It is what we do that makes us either a true believer or an unbeliever, not what we think about ourselves.

Nope, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Have you come across other Christians on this site you might say aren't Christian By their actions here? I'm curious.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The love of cars is the root of all evil.

Ah, but baby cars are so cute, who wouldn't love them?

 

[doubtingmerle]

a creature cant have a baby too, unless it has a replication system. so a creature cant evolve according to this criteria.

Creatures have replication systems, at least the ones that can evolve do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

2800 posts and you still fail to grasp even the basics....

I think it is time he has the talk about the birds and the BMWs.

 

[xianghua]

Replication is not the only requirement for evolution.

so replication+changes+ natural selection etc.

 

[pitabread]

so replication+changes+ natural selection etc.

Changes in what?

 

[xianghua]

Cars can't have babies.

why not? if its made from organic components it will be possible according to evolution.

 

[xianghua]

The this self replicating molecule and anything that it evolves into can never be a car.

why not? according to evolution many complex systems can evolve. so why not a car?

 

[xianghua]

If it can make a baby then it's not a car!

so a car that is able to make a small car isnt a car?

 

[xianghua]

Sorry if someone has already provided the following counter evidence. However, this argument was already trounced back in 2005 from Dover, Pennsylvania. It's very long, and I apologize. If you get antsy, forward to 1 hour and 6 minutes in....

do you want me to deal with a specific point? i can show you why they are actually wrong.

 

[xianghua]

Creatures have replication systems, at least the ones that can evolve do.

so the first living cell cant evolve since it cant reproduce?

 

[Speedwell]

so a car that is able to make a small car isnt a car?

It doesn't make any difference. What's your argument--that if we give the same name to a naturally occurring object as a human designed object then the naturally occurring object must be designed, too?

 

[Speedwell]

so the first living cell cant evolve since it cant reproduce?

Who said it couldn't reproduce?

 

[truefiction1]

Ah, but baby cars are so cute, who wouldn't love them?

Baby cars are for children. ... "When I became a man, I put childish things away." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

 

[PhantomGaze]

-_- considering the fact that we can actually sequence genomes, I'd say yes. Heck, given that species of animals is partly determined by ability to reproduce, it entirely neglects the population of Triops I am working with, which reproduce via self-fertilization. Phenotype is not the best indication of the degree of difference in genotype, however, so I wouldn't consider phenotype in and of itself to be

So why don't you actually name this new system of measurements you hint at to give us some way to discuss large scale evolutionary change? Do you merely want to speak vaguely about "genetic divergence" or something? You haven't really offered any alternative to taxonomic classification yet. I'm starting to suspect this is a tactic to water down discussion.

Actually, from looking at taxonomy so much, I'd say genus is more a measure of the number of divergences that retain certain common traits we chose to focus on rather than a consistent measure of a specific degree of similarity/difference. For example, while all members of the genus Nepenthes seem to be capable of reproducing with each other, this is not the case with all members of the genus Drosera. These are both plant genera. Genus doesn't even have consistency on whether or not the members share the same number of chromosomes.

That's wonderful, but again irrelevant. I did mention that I was talking about "higher taxonomic classifications".

On the other hand, I would say genetics bears out our systems of classifications typically.

(Since I've been posting old articles, here's another one)

PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTION OF CYTOCHROME C

-_- they are directly related. Rather, all changes in phenotype are not due to changes in the genome exclusively. But straight up, unless the mutation itself is neutral (like changing a codon to another codon that selects for the same amino acid), chances are the mutation will have some impact on phenotype. Assuming the cells actually use that gene to begin with, which is why mutations as an embryo cause so much more change than the mutations your cells acquire throughout adult life.

This is kind of funny, because in trying to explain why I'm wrong, you conceded that I'm right.

To highlight the points.

A good portion of Human DNA is non-coding with unknown function which does not affect phenotype.

Changes in gene expression (and by extension phenotype) don't typically change the underlying DNA.

-_- note the list of regulatory genes in your source and that all of them are just as prone to being influenced by mutations as any other gene. Heck, cell specialization in and of itself is the result in only certain genes being expressed within the cell, but the process by which the excess genes are kept inactive is mediated by protein products of genes. Genes influenced by hormones and other signals given off by cells in close proximity. However, the process by which the cells do it is nevertheless a part of the genome just as much subject to mutation as anything else.

The issue with treating epigenetic influences as a major cause of evolutionary trends is that the ones not tied in some way to genes directly have practically no staying power. If epigenetic changes were the most prominent source of variation, the differences between humans and other members of the same species living in different environments would be far more extreme within a relatively short period of time.

Firstly, that was a counter-example of the claim that epigenetic factors cannot change genes of your genome.

Secondly, not all genes are equally as likely to be influenced by mutations. There are mutation hotspots wherein mutations are more likely to fall.
Theoretical analysis of mutation hotspots and their DNA sequence context specificity - ScienceDirect

Thirdly, I think perhaps I've miscommunicated in that you seem to think that I maintain epigenetics is the only way evolution occurs largely non-randomly. I would say there are many many more things at play, like Hox Genes, Introns, Exons, Transposons, Evo-devo toolkit genes, etc. Epigenetics is merely one type of non-random change.

Finally, there is a specific mechanism that determines which epigenetic changes will be stable transgenerational changes, and which won't. Please see this paper on the DNA Methylation sensing circuit.

Stable transgenerational epigenetic inheritance requires a DNA methylation-sensing circuit

-_- given that epigenetics is a new study in genetics, perhaps the most rapidly developing area of science within the past 20 years, why would you ever use a source more than a decade old (this source is from 2007)?

This is an appeal to novelty fallacy. Being old doesn't make something incorrect. There are plenty of old discoveries that are still widely considered correct. Moreover, if the basic argument is in error, you should be able to demonstrate why it is in error.

To view changes in bacterial cells and the cells of other single celled organisms as being analogous to changes in multicellular organisms is a big mistake. In single celled organisms, daughter cells are composed of the cytoplasm, etc., of a parent cell, thus are invariably going to be directly influenced by any epigenetic factors which impacted that parent cell. However, in multicellular organisms such as humans, the sex cells are heavily protected from genetic change compared to somatic cells, thus they are not hit immediately with those epigenetic changes, only having some of the tendencies of the parent as a result of being somewhat exposed. As a result, epigenetic inheritance gradually increases influence as we age, and also changes as we age and are exposed to different environmental conditions. This makes epigenetic changes not factor in nearly as much in a 20 year old as it does in a 60 year old, yet those daughter cells would be impacted practically as much as the parent cell was. This also means that despite a degree of inheritance, the less similar of an environment you live in compared to your parents, the less of a shared epigenetic pattern can be observed. The changes are just too unstable and don't hit early enough to be as big of an evolutionary influence as you want to assert they are,

Human generations run about 20 years, mouse generations are about a year or two, yet we have found some pretty impressive results in our experiments with mouse models, so I find it entirely unconvincing to claim that nature requires 60+ years stable epigenetic changes.

In fact, the example you gave is probably the worst example you could have used. The lifespan of humans has only grown artificially based upon our technology and medicine. In the past, humans did not usually live 60+ years, and far beyond our capability to continually reproduce.


If you're looking for more examples epigenetics at work in multi-cellular organisms, there are plenty. Even the crowning jewel, Darwin's finches, his supposedly monumental example of natural selection appears to be based upon epigenetic alterations.

Finches

https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/24-08-17

Agouti Mice

https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/news030728-12.html

and they aren't less random in a sense of selecting for beneficial traits in multicellular organisms. And all of the gene mediated ones obviously are subject to genetic mutation themselves, not independent of it.

Actually, I'd beg to differ.

See Stress Directed Adaptive Mutations and Evolution.

Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

and The Origin of Mutants

The origin of mutants. - PubMed - NCBI

Plus, the paper I cited above showing that changes in Darwin's finches were epigenetic changes stands in as a testament against your claim. As Darwin observed, the size of finch's beaks oscillated in tune with their environment, which seems to be evidence of typical epigenetic phenotype switching.

Lastly on this point, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that have not really worked out lately. But chiefly, why do you assume these mechanisms are random? Especially when there is so much evidence that many non-random mechanisms are at play. Wherever there's a gap in our knowledge, you seem to assume everything is random.

How so? Very different gene combinations can result in extremely similar phenotype, so I see no reason I would need to rely on that. Mutations are not purely random, though, they are just the most random aspect of evolution. Random assumes that all mutations are equally probable,

But why so many similar adaptive strategies? Why do so many lines of evolution “navigate” themselves to similar 'solutions' in even extremely remote organisms like mammals and the katydid for example?
Convergent Evolution Between Insect and Mammalian Audition

Either we're to believe shortsighted stochastic processes accidentally look like only a certain set of predetermined solutions exist, or a set of predetermined solutions actually exist.

You seem to be assuming that there are a ton of different traits that would be equally beneficial for a given environment, and that there aren't any traits so extremely beneficial that any environment of a given type would select for it very powerfully.

You're missing the point, natural selection can only select for the variability that is given to it, and this is shortsighted. Extremely complex convergent traits in very distant lineages should therefore be extremely unlikely.

I think I responded to all the relevant points to the core of our discussion. If I've missed something feel free to point it out.

 

[pitabread]

why not? according to evolution many complex systems can evolve. so why not a car?

If cars could evolve naturally then why don't cars evolve naturally?

 

[PhantomGaze]

Sorry to butt in, but this sounds like an interesting discussion too.

If scientists were actually allowed to study the phenomena, you wouldn't be hearing about it ONLY from people at the church. Where are the scientific papers on the materials?

I think you have too much faith in systems. I used to think the same way though, that if any real miracles had been reported or investigated, that scientists would flock to it, and it would be hailed worldwide, etc. etc. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There's a lot that we don't know, so most cases that seem miraculous are just thrown on a pile with all the other papers published about spontaneous remission/regression.

Medical documentation might actually exist online. With a little more info from truefiction1, I'd be willing to look around.

Yet, it was with myrrh, which may actually just normally have properties which could apply to cancer treatment. What would be far more miraculous would be if it was just water, which doesn't treat anything but dehydration normally.

I feel like this is applying skepticism very unevenly. Even assuming myrrh had some kind of anti-cancer properties, (which I can definitely believe) what is the mechanism of action? Often times things have anti-cancer properties in vitro, but not in vivo, with no way of actually getting the solution into contact with the cancer itself. If anyone in any other context suggested that anointing someone with myrrh could have 'cured cancer' they'd be instantly written off as a quack.

-_- how many devout Christians are devoid of pride? I flat out hate myself and interpret pretty much anything I work on as garbage, so pride is not the problem. Pride has never been my problem. It's this same line of thinking that leads theists to assert that atheists worship themselves (we don't). Why assume that my lack of faith is the result of some character flaw?

I think you're misunderstanding pride. But it's a very common misunderstanding. Hating yourself, thinking that nothing you do is good enough isn't a result of humility. It comes from feeling a lack of self-worth. I find often that many people draw self-esteem from their intelligence. They feel valuable for being a certain kind of person (an intelligent person), and it influences a lot of people's decisions. An externally oriented source of self-worth, one that tends to be tested and measured by external sources like intelligence tests, or achievements, beauty, strength, etc. is in some sense going to be constantly under threat. (Perhaps I'm not using terminology correctly, but I think you can see what I'm saying)

A more secure source of self-worth comes from your merely being human.

Consider this.

All of those external sources of self-worth like beauty, or intelligence are valuable only because humans are valuable. If humans are worthless, none of those things matter anyway.

You're a human.

Therefore you're valuable, and you're worthy of love.

All that extra stuff is nice, but those aforementioned things can't really add to, or take away from your value much at all. They may improve the experience a bit, but can't determine value.

Back to Atheism,

In many cases (but certainly not all) Atheism can play a part in this as culturally Atheism tends to emphasize a “more rational than thou” sentiment. (This of course doesn't mean Atheism is wrong, but Atheistic culture tends to emphasize the rational, over and against those things deemed to be irrational or superstitious) this often causes people to find enjoyment in watching people do or say stupid things because they feel a sense of validation through the knowledge that they're more intelligent, and re-affirms their own value. Obviously, this isn't all Athiests, but I would say a good portion of New Atheists follow that path.

 

[truefiction1]

Hitler was a Roman Catholic carrying out his final solution on the Jews.... so tell me, what does "Gott Mit Uns" translate to? From Five things you probably didn't know about World War II Germany - History Alive :

The German army had Chaplains
I’ve seen first-hand the expressions of shock and disbelief when people see a man dressed, not only in a German uniform, but in the uniform of a Wehrmacht Chaplain. This is quickly followed by comments such as, ‘The Germans didn’t believe in God’ or ‘The Germans weren’t religious’. This is false. During the 30s and 40s, 95% of the German population were Christian, and during that time many Wehrmacht soldiers continued to belong to their churches. Even on their uniform, their belt buckles were inscribed with ‘Gott mit uns’, which translates to ‘God is with us’. Germany had a strong tradition of appointing Catholic field Chaplains in the army, and this continued throughout the Second World War. Hundreds of photos exist of German soldiers participating in field services conducted by Chaplains, and many civilian accounts exist of German soldiers taking part in mass at the local church.​

The Irony further down about Operation Paperclip too...:

Operation Paperclip
Following the conclusion of the Second World War, many people believed it was the US that led the world’s technological advancement. This may or may not be true, but any and all success and progress that the US had following the war was because of one thing – German scientists. Nazi Germany was the pioneer in innovative technology such as, jet fighters and rocket science and while this may have come too late to help them in the war, the US was desperate to acquire this knowledge. The process of retrieving this knowledge came to be known as Operation Paperclip, a covert operation launched in 1945 with the aim of recruiting as many German scientists, technicians and engineers as possible before the Russians. Operation Paperclip was tremendously successful, with over 1500 scientists recruited, transported and employed in the US. In fact, most of the research relating to the Saturn V rockets and the Apollo spacecraft, came from Wernher von Braun, the scientist who had designed the V1 and V2 rockets.​

Firstly, those who embrace anti-christ ideologies are atheists, regardless of what they think about themselves. Secondly, many of the greatest scientists were people of faith. Thirdly, when the leaders of the communist regime in Russia finally figured out that they couldn't stand against the German military without the support of all of their nation's people (including its people of faith), they changed tactics and stopped persecuting them to death. Afterwards, Germany could not defeat them. And finally, not all Christians are against science. It just isn't a thing that they worship, because science and technology isn't going to save anyone from annihilation, whereas the worship of science (called scientism, which is a false religion), is leading man to annihilate the very world he lives in.
​

... if only fundamentalists knew why scientists wish they didn't try to interfere so much with science and critical thinking in public education... It's because of the value it has to progress and technology, the US is losing that battle, I'm afraid...

I'm not "fundamentalist".

Unless of course you pray to another God, or no god at all... then like the Caananites, God might love you, your family, even your infants and livestock to a vicious and grizzly death.

There are things unfathomably worse than death.

There's a body to examine? Where can we see it? That would settle everything once and for all!

The body is far too large and expansive to examine in the way you'd like, but its many parts can be looked upon and given serious consideration, because these parts often work great miraculous wonders, which can be sensed by anyone filled with the Holy Spirit.

Nope, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Have you come across other Christians on this site you might say aren't Christian By their actions here? I'm curious.

Hitler was a child of his father Satan. He is not a child of God who is one "outwardly": only if one is a child of God "inwardly" can one be rightly called catholic. Those children of God who love others as they love themselves do not murder others: they pray for others and show thme compassion.

Endnote* Where did Hitler's great vision actually lead his nation? Answer: to the creation of hell on earth -- not heaven. He did not believe that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is what has already saved the world, so he sacrificed instead the lives of millions of people all around the world in his and his people's quest to bring about an imagined utopia. Big - fat - lie.

 

[pitabread]

I think you have too much faith in systems. I used to think the same way though, that if any real miracles had been reported or investigated, that scientists would flock to it, and it would be hailed worldwide, etc. etc. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There's a lot that we don't know, so most cases that seem miraculous are just thrown on a pile with all the other papers published about spontaneous remission/regression.

Except that when talking about cancers specifically it's known that they sometimes do go into spontaneous remission. How would one tell the difference between natural remission and a miracle?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Why can't natural remission be a miracle?