Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[Speedwell]

so if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve into a cell-phone? show me how in stepwise.

Something identical to a cell phone, with all of the "evidence of contrivance" a cell phone has? Or something that functions like a cell phone? If that latter, can we assume that the infrastructure required for a cell phone-like entity to function has also evolved stepwise?

 

[xianghua]

Something identical to a cell phone, with all of the "evidence of contrivance" a cell phone has? Or something that functions like a cell phone? If that latter, can we assume that the infrastructure required for a cell phone-like entity to function has also evolved stepwise?

if i undertood you claim- any object that can act as a cell-phone is ok.

 

[pitabread]

Why are we talking about cell phones? Cell phones aren't living things and therefore completely irrelevant to a discussion about the evolution of living things. Same with cars, robots, watches or any other non living objects. Period.

 

[Speedwell]

if i undertood you claim- any object that can act as a cell-phone is ok.

And the environment this cell-phone like entity is supposed to function in? That would have to be evolving stepwise at the same time for this to work.

 

[Kylie]

so if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve into a cell-phone? show me how in stepwise.

*sigh*

How many times do you need to be told how this is wrong? Why do you keep bring up the same deeply flawed argument? Do you not actually read people's responses to you, or are you intentionally ignoring them?

 

[xianghua]

*sigh*

How many times do you need to be told how this is wrong? Why do you keep bring up the same deeply flawed argument? Do you not actually read people's responses to you, or are you intentionally ignoring them?

you said that we can compare a cell-phone with a living thing since a cell-phone cant reproduce. right? so here i used a self replicating object. so now according to your criteria such a cell-phone that can reproduce is suppose to be able to evolve since it can reproduce.

 

[xianghua]

Why are we talking about cell phones? Cell phones aren't living things and therefore completely irrelevant to a discussion about the evolution of living things. Same with cars, robots, watches or any other non living objects. Period.

see my comment to kyile. i do talking about objects that can raproduce.

 

[pitabread]

see my comment to kyile. i do talking about objects that can raproduce.

No you're not. You're just making up fantasy objects that don't exist in reality.

You never stick to just taking about real biological organisms in these discussions. Why is that?

 

[xianghua]

No you're not. You're just making up fantasy objects that don't exist in reality.

its a theoretical question. in science we can ask theoretical questions so i see no problem.

 

[Speedwell]

its a theoretical question. in science we can ask theoretical questions so i see no problem.

But they are waste of time because they are all based on the erroneous notion that functional complexity is evidence of intelligent design.

 

[pitabread]

its a theoretical question. in science we can ask theoretical questions so i see no problem.

It's not a theoretical question. We've been over this a dozen times.

Theory has basis in reality. What you are suggesting has no basis reality. It's just a made-up fantasy.

If the only way you can try to argue for design is to resort to made-up fantasy objects, what does that say about your arguments?

 

[xianghua]

It's not a theoretical question. We've been over this a dozen times.

Theory has basis in reality. What you are suggesting has no basis reality. It's just a made-up fantasy.

If the only way you can try to argue for design is to resort to made-up fantasy objects, what does that say about your arguments?

its actually a reality. we have sonar and motion systems in nature. as we have them in human design.

 

[Speedwell]

its actually a reality. we have sonar and motion systems in nature. as we have them in human design.

So what? Just because they are sonar or motion systems is not in itself evidence of intelligent design

 

[pitabread]

its actually a reality. we have sonar and motion systems in nature. as we have them in human design.

And now you're trying to change the subject again. You were trying to invoke a discussion of self-replicating cell phones. There are no such objects in reality and no theoretical basis for them; it's pure fantasy.

Invoking fantasy objects to support an argument is the sign of a terrible argument.

Discussion of natural sonar or motion in living organisms is also irrelevant to the discussion of such systems in man-made objects. Living things are not inanimate manufactured objects and vise-versa. Trying to equate the two is you again invoking your favorite fallacy: False equivalence - Wikipedia

This just suggests you need a basic course in Biology 101 to learn the different between living and non-living things.

 

[xianghua]

. Living things are not inanimate manufactured objects and vise-versa.

again you bring up that wrong notion. we are talking about the question of stepwise in a sonar. so its irrelevant if the sonar is able to reproduce or not. according to evolution if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve into a sonar. so what make you think that a sonar can evolve stepwise? also remember that you as intelligent designer c an change any parts you want. like mutations. so even if we are talking about inanimate sonar you objection is irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

So what? Just because they are sonar or motion systems is not in itself evidence of intelligent design

we are talking now about the idea of ic system. not about detecting design.

 

[pitabread]

we are talking about the question of stepwise in a sonar.

No, we were talking about cell phones. At which point it was mentioned that cell phones don't reproduce. And once again, you invented a magic fantasy version of cell phones that you claim could reproduce. Even though no such thing exists in nature.

When that was explained to you, you then changed the subject. You do this every single time.

also remember that you as intelligent designer c an change any parts you want. like mutations.

If you're invoking an unbounded designer with no limitations, then you're basically talking about magic. In which case the discussion is irrelevant because magic can be used as an answer for anything and everything.

 

[Speedwell]

we are talking now about the idea of ic system. not about detecting design.

The "idea" of an IC system is vacuous. In order to demonstrate the "idea" of an IC system in nature you would have to show us one for which no possible evolutionary pathway could be conceived of to produce it.

 

[pitabread]

The "idea" of an IC system is vacuous. In order to demonstrate the "idea" of an IC system in nature you would have to show us one for which no possible evolutionary pathway could be conceived of to produce it.

Actually that's not even true in and itself. IC systems (in terms of removing a part can result in a non-functional system) can still be evolved. The following article discusses just that in the evolution of ring protein complexity: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

This is why IC is not synonymous with non-evolvable. It's a failed hypothesis in that respect.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually that's not even true in and itself. IC systems (in terms of removing a part can result in a non-functional system) can still be evolved. The following article discusses just that in the evolution of ring protein complexity: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

This is why IC is not synonymous with non-evolvable. It's a failed hypothesis in that respect.

That's what I meant. The presence of a non-evolvable system in nature (which is what I suspect Xianghua means by "IC" in nature) is an a priori argument for which any hypothetical evolutionary pathway for that system is logically sufficient as a refutation. The actual pathway need not be demonstrated.