the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

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

Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.

I have demonstrated that arguments from analogy are invalid.

Case closed.

 

[bcbsr]

No, its a stupid analogy.

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

What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.

 

[bcbsr]

Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.

I have demonstrated that arguments from analogy are invalid.

Case closed.

Nope, you didn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.

Childbirth, when taken out of the biological realm is stupid. Milling machines don't have babies.

But both childbirth and evolution make sense in the biological realm.

 

[VirOptimus]

What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.

Poe?

 

[xianghua]

Again, you are changing your argument. The argument was that the flagellum can't evolve. The flagellum is not a protein-transport system.

If the flagellum can evolve based on a precursor system with a different function, then it demonstrates that the flagellum can evolve. Do you agree that the flagellum can evolve in this manner?

i claiming that the flagellum cant evolve stepwise. this isnt stepwise since we are talking about big steps.

 

[xianghua]

What do you mean specifically by that? You mean if it was made of wood or something? Or are you suggesting it is a living creature?

where do you put the limit between living thing and non- living thing?

 

[xianghua]

Thanks for writing. I've come up with a similiar argument. Suppose we discovered a planet on which there were factories which built robots and robots building factories which build robots.

dont forgot self replicating robots and factories

 

[pitabread]

i claiming that the flagellum cant evolve stepwise. this isnt stepwise since we are talking about big steps.

There are no "big steps". Everything is step-wise, exactly what you claimed couldn't happen: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

And no, starting with with a protein export system doesn't count a "big step" for flagellum evolution since a protein export system isn't a flagellum to begin with.

If you are claiming that the flagellum itself can't evolve, then you need to demonstrate how since it clearly has a plausible evolutionary path that can happen step-wise. If you are going to claim that the starting point in this scenario (e.g. a protein export system) can't evolve, then that this an entirely different argument than claiming the flagellum can't evolve.

You need to think about your argument for a moment and try to figure out what it is you are trying to argue for.

 

[pitabread]

where do you put the limit between living thing and non- living thing?

Living things can self-organize, grow, metabolize, respond to external stimuli, and reproduce with inheritance (and consequently evolve).

For example, this demonstrates the difference between a tree (alive) and a table made of wood (not alive). The tree can do all of the above things I listed. The table cannot.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Just wondering: Would a designer have to come into being by a "naturall (sic!] process" or by "design"?

Come now, certainly you know that capital-G God by definition if is necessarily existing.

 

[MaudDib]

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. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.

Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.

Sorry I must be missing something.

Do you know what analogical reasoning is? The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.

Wait, do you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival? That it was goal directed?

 

[pitabread]

The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.

It's not.

(Or at the very least, "irreducible complexity" is not synonymous with non-evolvable.)

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry I must be missing something.

Do you know what analogical reasoning is? The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.

Wait, do you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival? That it was goal directed?

No. It appears you need to learn a little more about what the theory of evolution actually claims. There are no long term goals in evolution, nothing but the next step in increasing fitness.

 

[MaudDib]

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.

You are confusing the simple pattern of a snowflake with the complex machinery of a flagellum motor?
Nice try.
I'll say it again, the flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity (please read up on Michael Behe and his mousetrap to see this).

The difference between you and the rest of us is that you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival, and we, reasonably, do not.

Nice dancing moves by the way.

 

[Speedwell]

The difference between you and the rest of us is that you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival, and we, reasonably, do not.

Still false. Evolution foresees nothing but the very next step towards fitness.

 

[Skreeper]

I'll say it again, the flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity (please read up on Michael Behe and his mousetrap to see this).

I see you're new here so I'll cut you some slack. Michael Behe and his irreducible complexity is a PRATT (Point refuted a thousand times). You can read more on that here.

You'll have to come up with something new that isn't fallacious or just flat out wrong.

 

[MaudDib]

Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.

I have demonstrated that arguments from analogy are invalid.

Case closed.

Oh yeah you shut down the entire enterprise of analogical reasoning? What you think the use of analogical reasoning to convey an idea does simething to undermine the underlying FACT of the flagellum motor: irreducible complexity?

 

[MaudDib]

Still false. Evolution foresees nothing but the very next step towards fitness.

Yes that’s my point, I was being sarcastic! So you agree then that irreducible complexity is not a function of evolution, welcome to the club!

 

[Speedwell]

Yes that’s my point, I was being sarcastic! So you agree then that irreducible complexity is not a function of evolution, welcome to the club!

No, what I said was that the evolutionary process does not engage long-term goals. Each step in the evolutionary process must increase the fitness of the creature in some manner, even if increasing it in some different way than the previous step.