the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

The OP last year has the double problem of labelling a graphic about the "flagellum motor" as an actual motor.

Oh, it gets worse than that. He's repeatedly argued that the flagellum is a motor in the same manner as an electric motor, and therefore argues it is designed. Granted English isn't his first language, but he seems to really struggle with the concept of contextual usage of words.

 

[RealityCheck01]

xianghua: Consider the E. coli long-term evolution experiment. If there was a designer, this gives a possibility of controlling the designer!
The experiment evolved a new species of E. Coli that had aerobic citrate usage (the definition of the E. Coli species includes that it does not use citrate). There are samples of the population before the speciation. We can start from these populations and the designer will be forced to either create the same species or not create the new species. Either way, we are forcing the designer to make a design decision.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Oh, it gets worse than that. He's repeatedly argued that the flagellum is a motor in the same manner as an electric motor, and therefore argues it is designed.

I hope that this is not physically the same with magnets, etc.!

It sounds like his only argument is pointing at a graphic, claiming it looks designed, he must be right and so there must be a designer.
xianghua: that is not even an argument, it is a unsupported opinion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I've come up with a similiar argument....

An irrelevant argument because there is no facts and theory of "evolutionary self-replication". There are animals that clone themselves and that is part of reproduction.

This is the facts and theory of evolution.

Even better is the DNA code argument. In astronomy, the SETI program (the search of extraterrestrial intelligence) presumes that coded information implies intelligent life.

SETI has nothing to do with a "DNA code argument". SETI is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Whether that life has DNA or not is not part of the search. Some astrobiologists think that extraterrestrial life will be based on DNA but others do not.

ETA: We can go a bit science fictional about SETI. Very hypothetically a non-DNA based, non-intelligent life form with natural radio transmitters could exist. SETI detecting their transmissions is not part of any "DNA code argument".

 

[bcbsr]

Machines that build other machines? Surely they were designed by intelligent beings, computers, gods, or the like.

Alien animals that have babies? Surely we would suspect something like biological evolution was at least largely responsible for what we see.

What are we finding? Machines or animals?

Same mechanisms, so why different inferences? Just demonstrates bias on the part of evolutionists.

 

[bcbsr]

Evolution by randomly distributed variation and selection can be modeled mathematically as a stochastic process. As such, it can be proven mathematically to be capable of producing the kind of complex structures found in living things. The "hypothesis of evolutionists" in this case is that the mathematical model reflects accurately what is happening in nature. So far, that hypothesis has been borne out by the evidence.

I don't care about the reputation of evolutionary biologists with creationists is. As long as you keep creationism (and the theology that goes with it) out of the public schools it doesn't matter.

Nope, it hasn't.

 

[bcbsr]

An irrelevant argument because there is no facts and theory of "evolutionary self-replication". There are animals that clone themselves and that is part of reproduction.

This is the facts and theory of evolution.


SETI has nothing to do with a "DNA code argument". SETI is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Whether that life has DNA or not is not part of the search. Some astrobiologists think that extraterrestrial life will be based on DNA but others do not.

ETA: We can go a bit science fictional about SETI. Very hypothetically a non-DNA based, non-intelligent life form with natural radio transmitters could exist. SETI detecting their transmissions is not part of any "DNA code argument".

You miss the point. (No surprise). My point is not the DNA code in particular, but rather coded information.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Same mechanisms, so why different inferences? Just demonstrates bias on the part of evolutionists.

No. Making a baby is not the same thing as building a machine.

The man in the front of the picture below is either making a toy or making a baby. Can you guess which?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Same mechanisms, so why different inferences? Just demonstrates bias on the part of evolutionists.

-_- cells don't work via the same mechanisms as, say, car engines. That's the entire problem with comparing these items. For example, moving parts in machines are forced to move by pressure, etc., and generally do not change their shape. Flagella move because a chemical attaches to a portion at the base that changes its shape and that change will make it take up more space and push nearby molecules, and that movement of changing shape repeated over and over is what makes the flagella move. A USB doesn't change shape when you save a file on it, but neurons in your brain will shift position and even change their structure when you memorize information.

Why should the origin of one of these types of systems lend any indication of the origin of an entirely different type of system?

 

[bcbsr]

No. Making a baby is not the same thing as building a machine.

The man in the front of the picture below is either making a toy or making a baby. Can you guess which?

Thing is atheistic naturalists very everything as nothing more than matter, whether people or machines - that is that people are machines. So what's the matter? With regards to mechanisms the evolutionists propose, it doesn't matter - self-replication plus mutation plus time will hypothetically result in functionally complex mechanisms. That's their hypothesis.

 

[bcbsr]

-_- cells don't work via the same mechanisms as, say, car engines. That's the entire problem with comparing these items. For example, moving parts in machines are forced to move by pressure, etc., and generally do not change their shape. Flagella move because a chemical attaches to a portion at the base that changes its shape and that change will make it take up more space and push nearby molecules, and that movement of changing shape repeated over and over is what makes the flagella move. A USB doesn't change shape when you save a file on it, but neurons in your brain will shift position and even change their structure when you memorize information.

Why should the origin of one of these types of systems lend any indication of the origin of an entirely different type of system?

The hypothesis atheists naturalists make is give a self-replicating system plus mutation plus time results in functionally complex mechanisms. In fact they've tried to model such with computer programs. Gee is a computer program any different than nature?

 

[Speedwell]

Nope, it hasn't.

I like that. You're flat-out denying an entire branch of mathematics. Tell me, o wise one, where is it wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

The hypothesis atheists naturalists make is give a self-replicating system plus mutation plus time results in functionally complex mechanisms. In fact they've tried to model such with computer programs. Gee is a computer program any different than nature?

Atheist naturalists? You are aware, I hope, that this discussion is not theism versus atheism. It's about a Protestant minority with a particular interpretation of Genesis versus everybody else, theist and atheist together. Trying to make the creation/evolution debate into a theism/atheism debate is dishonest.

 

[bcbsr]

I like that. You're flat-out denying an entire branch of mathematics. Tell me, o wise one, where is it wrong?

You provided no evidence, just a statement of your hypothesis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Thing is atheistic naturalists very everything as nothing more than matter, whether people or machines - that is that people are machines. So what's the matter?

Word salad.

What is the difference between animals and living machines? Animals begin as single cells that divide into a colony of cells as controlled by DNA, eventually developing through many stages such as blastocyst, fetus, baby, and adult. Each stage is very different depending on how the DNA is activated. Minor changes to the DNA can make significant changes in the adult, hence opening the path to evolution. Non-living mechanical machines cannot do this.

With regards to mechanisms the evolutionists propose, it doesn't matter - self-replication plus mutation plus time will hypothetically result in functionally complex mechanisms. That's their hypothesis.

Plus selection. You left that out.

It is more than a hypothesis. For instance, it has been shown convincingly that a single stock of finches flew to the Galapagos and evolved into 13 species of finches. Do you agree this happened? If not, how did they get there?

 

[bcbsr]

Word salad.

What is the difference between animals and living machines? Animals begin as single cells that divide into a colony of cells as controlled by DNA, eventually developing through many stages such as blastocyst, fetus, baby, and adult. Each stage is very different depending on how the DNA is activated. Minor changes to the DNA can make significant changes in the adult, hence opening the path to evolution. Non-living mechanical machines cannot do this.


Plus selection. You left that out.

It is more than a hypothesis. For instance, it has been shown convincingly that a single stock of finches flew to the Galapagos and evolved into 13 species of finches. Do you agree this happened? If not, how did they get there?

Going back to the analogy, the "selection" is in the analogy where robots making the factory make mistakes which by chance create a new line of robots better suited for the environment. Analogy holds. But the fact is applying the same theory to a different analogy evolutionists recognize that it's intuitively obvious that evolution is not the answer. And you're kind of an example of that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Going back to the analogy, the "selection" is in the analogy where robots making the factory make mistakes which by chance create a new line of robots better suited for the environment. Analogy holds. But the fact is applying the same theory to a different analogy evolutionists recognize that it's intuitively obvious that evolution is not the answer. And you're kind of an example of that.

No, its a stupid analogy.

The ToE is incredibly wellsuppported by evidence. Not accepting it is just ignorant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Going back to the analogy, the "selection" is in the analogy where robots making the factory make mistakes which by chance create a new line of robots better suited for the environment. Analogy holds. But the fact is applying the same theory to a different analogy evolutionists recognize that it's intuitively obvious that evolution is not the answer. And you're kind of an example of that.

Your logic is not valid. If your logic was valid then one could say that since metal chips don't grow up to be milling machines, therefore babies cannot grow up to adults.

You cannot simply make an analogy between two unrelated things and use it to prove a point .

Got any valid arguments?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Going back to the analogy, the "selection" is in the analogy where robots making the factory make mistakes which by chance create a new line of robots better suited for the environment. Analogy holds. But the fact is applying the same theory to a different analogy evolutionists recognize that it's intuitively obvious that evolution is not the answer. And you're kind of an example of that.

i see you ignored my question about how all those species of finches got to the Galapagos. Even the creationists here seem to agree that one founding flock moved there and evolved into multiple species. Do you agree? Or do you have a different explanation? Or will you just ignore the question and repeat irrelevant analogies?

 

[bcbsr]

Your logic is not valid. If your logic was valid then one could say that since metal chips don't grow up to be milling machines, therefore babies cannot grow up to adults.

You cannot simply make an analogy between two unrelated things and use it to prove a point .

Got any valid arguments?

Nope, that is not the logical argument I was referring to.