If my only aim is to get a watch, then each step prior to the step that gives me a functional watch would be irrelevant to my goal. Otherwise I could find some function for any step leading to the watch. Its all about intention (which evolution does not possess, making your watch analogy a faulty one).
1 Like
you can add mutations over time. that watch will not evolve into something else like a cell-phone.
please show it without involving any designer\animal\etc.
I don’t know whether there are no stepwise paths from sundial to digital watch. The question I am asking: Even if it is true that there is no such stepwise path, what is the logical argument that leads to the conclusion that this is true for the bacterial flagellum?
Have you an answer? If it helps, you can draw us some pictures. I love when you do that.
Very good, now your on to the game 
Ultimately evolutionary ideology struggles with this game as it is very difficult to argue against design without committing logical fallacies. This why Mike Behe said that no one has “laid a glove” on the design argument. Molecular macro evolution lacks such a model. The discussion of why it lacks a predictive model is very interesting. In order to have a predictive model you need a mechanism powerful enough to explain the observation.
The word model has many meanings. In the context I am using it says that you can use it to make predictions. When I use the term speculation I mean a conclusion without a predictive model behind it. In a sense speculation is a untested hypothesis. The model Einstein used for making predictions was general relativity. It is based on Einsteins chosen mechanism of mass and how that mechanism effects space-time.
because there is no real difference between the two examples which is relevant to their IC. thus we can conclude the same for both.
How do you add mutations to a self-replicating watch? If you program the watch to randomly mutate it will at best produce defective watches that will go extinct which is not the case with living organisms.
what is the problem? if it can reproduce like a living thing (think about organic watch) than it can also add mutations over time.
Your analogies fail because you are comparing an imagined watch against a living organism.
1 Like
Your problem is that you desire it to be a game so that mere labels are on a par with scientific evidence.
3 Likes
This is just nonsense. Humans invented watches, so there is no way to get a watch without the expertise of a human watchmaker.
so lets talk about reality. first, do you agree that a self replicating motor is evidence for design?
Great idea.
And so much for talking about reality…
1 Like
we are talking about the mutations in that watch. and for that we dont need human.
Go through your comments to me and mine to you, you won’t find the word “mutations” in any them.
You have not returned to reality yet, because in reality self-replicating motors don’t exist. The flagella motor (which I suspect is what you had in mind when you talked about coming back to reality) doesn’t self-replicate. It consists of proteins that are synthesized by ribosomes.
All decorum has left this building. If there are any USEFUL discussions to continue, I will consider re-opening the thread, OR you can start a new thread with a topic. /fnord
3 Likes
Arguing is one thing, but this is more of a brawl. Please take a moment and consider if there might be a more useful discussion to be had.
1 Like