the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

Evolve from what?

from a self replicating object.

 

[xianghua]

No assumption is involved. Iin this scenario xianghua has posited a self-replicating watch with evolutionary potential. Implicit in such a scenario is that the watch has evolved, not just "popped into existence". Thus I am following the constraints of xinghua's scenario in my comments. Those constraints are not assumptions, but specifications chosen by xianghua.

i ac tually said that such a watch cant evolve. and therefore will be evidnece for design.

 

[Ophiolite]

i ac tually said that such a watch cant evolve. and therefore will be evidnece for design.

In that case your posts make even less sense than I thought they did. . . . and they didn't appear to make any sense. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Speedwell]

from a self replicating object.

You'll have to be more specific and describe the traits of the self-replicating object and also those traits which would have to appear for you to regard the evolved object as a "car."

 

[pitabread]

i ac tually said that such a watch cant evolve. and therefore will be evidnece for design.

But such a watch doesn't exist in first place. Creating an imaginary object and then stating what it can or can't do isn't relevant.

What is relevant is what real world objects do.

 

[xianghua]

But such a watch doesn't exist in first place. Creating an imaginary object and then stating what it can or can't do isn't relevant.

What is relevant is what real world objects do.

no problem. i also gave the flagellum example. such a system is no less complex than a watch. so we can compare it to a self replicating watch. and if a self replicating watch cant evolve its also true for the flagellum.

 

[Speedwell]

no problem. i also gave the flagellum example. such a system is no less complex than a watch. so we can compare it to a self replicating watch. and if a self replicating watch cant evolve its also true for the flagellum.

So if an object which exists only in your imagination can't evolve, then an object which exists in reality can't evolve either? Right.

 

[pitabread]

no problem. i also gave the flagellum example.

Except that the flagellum can evolve: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

so we can compare it to a self replicating watch.

Self replicating watches don't exist.

Do you understand the difference between real life and imagination ?

 

[pat34lee]

I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.

And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents.

Not true in nature. There is no physical trail from
one species to the next. Every life form ever found
pops up fully formed and suited to live in it's habitat.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not true in nature. There is no physical trail from
one species to the next. Every life form ever found
pops up fully formed and suited to live in it's habitat.

Forgive my abruptness, it is late here and I am tired.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, but please don't insult my intelligence, or - more to the point - the tens of thousands of dedicated scientists who have devoted careers to locating the physical trails you are too blind, or self-indulgently stubborn to see. It is silly and it is tiresome. Stick with your faith and leave the science to those of us who are qualified, through effort and openness, to evaluate it.

 

[pat34lee]

There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:

A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.

Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.

We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.

Sorry, but you're confusing structure with complexity.
A crystal or snowflake is not more complex as it grows.
Like crystals, it needs energy to form, and it grows in
the paths of least resistance. It is proof of the second
law of thermodynamics in action.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

 

[pat34lee]

Forgive my abruptness, it is late here and I am tired.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, but please don't insult my intelligence, or - more to the point - the tens of thousands of dedicated scientists who have devoted careers to locating the physical trails you are too blind, or self-indulgently stubborn to see. It is silly and it is tiresome. Stick with your faith and leave the science to those of us who are qualified, through effort and openness, to evaluate it.

The blind are leading the blind.
The Institute for Creation Research

You don't even realize your blind devotion to
a theory with no logical underpinnings. You
promote a religion that is tearing apart our
culture by trying to replace God with nature
and chance as the ultimate creator.

I could give reasons why naturalism itself is
impossible, much less evolution and every
theory from the big bang to stellar evolution
and biogenesis, but it wouldn't change your
mind because you have FAITH in your beliefs.
Impossible? Not when you can add pixie dust
and a few billion years.

 

[pat34lee]

Except that the flagellum can evolve: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

Do you understand the difference between real life and imagination ?

"Do you understand the difference between real life and imagination ?"

You ask that after posting a fictional account of how
flagellum could evolve, with absolutely nothing to
back it up. Basically, it happened, so it must have
evolved somehow, even if no intermediary steps work
or even make sense. Dawkins was good at spinning
yarns too, and making them sound feasible, when there
is no science to back him up.

 

[OzSpen]

Not my problem you don't know how humans recognize design. I'm just hoping you'll eventually stop using the "self replicating x" argument because it's nonsense.

So please tell me how I, a human being, recognise design? Can you read what's inside my being to determine how I identify design.

If the 'self-replicating x' argument is nonsense, you've committed an 'avoiding the issue' logical fallacy.

When you make the accusation of 'nonsense' in a post and don't provide evidence for why this is so, you've used this fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when this fallacious reasoning is used.

 

[pitabread]

"Do you understand the difference between real life and imagination ?"

You ask that after posting a fictional account of how
flagellum could evolve, with absolutely nothing to
back it up. Basically, it happened, so it must have
evolved somehow, even if no intermediary steps work
or even make sense. Dawkins was good at spinning
yarns too, and making them sound feasible, when there
is no science to back him up.

Mapping out a plausible scenario for the evolution of a flagellum still has a factual basis, based on known mechanisms and observations.

xianghua's self replicating objects are pure fantasy constructs.

 

[pat34lee]

Thank you for your reply. I ask of you only one thing: do not stand in the way of, or through inaction prejudice, the efforts to make this world a better place, by those of us who do not believe in end times. This should present no conflict with your beliefs.

Talking about all believers in God here:
Anyone who thinks they can force God's hand
is ignorant of who is God and who is the servant.
We are to carry on until he arrives, not just until
we think the signs are right.

 

[pat34lee]

Mapping out a plausible scenario for the evolution of a flagellum still has a factual basis, based on known mechanisms and observations.

xianghua's self replicating objects are pure fantasy constructs.

I could describe how similar a wing, a leg and
a fin are made, but that doesn't mean that a
fish will grow legs or a lizard will grow wings.

 

[Speedwell]

Mapping out a plausible scenario for the evolution of a flagellum still has a factual basis, based on known mechanisms and observations.

xianghua's self replicating objects are pure fantasy constructs.

Absolutely. The claim is that the flagellum cannot possibly evolve by variation and selection. Consequently, even a plausible hypothetical scenario is logically sufficient to refute the claim.

 

[pitabread]

I could describe how similar a wing, a leg and
a fin are made, but that doesn't mean that a
fish will grow legs or a lizard will grow wings.

The paper in question isn't "how they are made", but rather how the flagellum could evolve.

 

[Ophiolite]

The blind are leading the blind.
The Institute for Creation Research

You got that part right:a perfect introduction to the ICR.

You don't even realize your blind devotion to
a theory with no logical underpinnings. You
promote a religion that is tearing apart our
culture by trying to replace God with nature
and chance as the ultimate creator.

This is offensive on so many levels I hardly no where to begin. In fact, I shan't. A culture that threatens the survival of the biosphere at worst and deterioration of the human condition at best, by denying global warming, deserves to be dismantled, shredded and consigned to history before it does any further damage. If you are not one of the fundamentalists who shares the view that global warming has nothing to do with man's actions then I apologise, but the the rest of your rhetoric is indistinguishable from that group of dangerous ostriches. Drat. I said I wouldn't start. Well, at least I can stop.