the self replicating watch argument

[Meowzltov]

2) we can arrange many objects in order. for instance:

We're talking about the evolution of life, and you are showing me cars? Say what?

 

[durangodawood]

...As the Eagles sang: "They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast"

As Steely Dan sang: "Turn up the Eagles the neighbors are listening"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We're talking about the evolution of life, and you are showing me cars? Say what?

After a while you'll realise xianghua struggles to differentiate between animate and inanimate objects. He has some weird fantasies about cars, robots and watches all having babies

 

[DogmaHunter]

not realy.

Yes really.

You said it explicitly. You agreed that the robot isn't a human and you agreed that the human isn't a robot.

from a physical perspective (without geting now into the question of free will or soul) a walking creature like a penguin can be consider as a kind of a robot.

So both of these are robots?

Or is it just the one on the right that qualifies as "robot"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

do you see any problem to call this a watch if it was able to reproduce and was made from organic components?:

No need to get into these imaginary creatures again.... We HAVE actual examples of things that look exactly alike but where one is a mechanical device and the other is a living organism.

On the right, you have a robot (your "watch").
On the left, you have an organism that looks exactly like the robot but which lives, reproduces and is made from organic material.

So, do you see any problem with calling the living thing on the left a "robot"?
Do you think it is correct to refer to both with the same label?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i dont need to show such a thing in order to prove that it will still be a watch.

Is Arnold Swarzenneger in The Terminator, a human? Or a terminator / robot?

and if a watch with living traits is still a watch then a robot with living traits is still a robot.

Consider my picture again.
Is the living thing on the left a robot?

 

[DogmaHunter]

but will you consider it to be a watch or not in this case?

Will you consider this to be a human?

Or will you consider it to be a robot?

If you would refer to it as "human", do you think people will understand that you are refering to the robot in the picture?

 

[Kylie]

If simple life got by so well then why change, why upset things.

Because in any population of individuals there will be variation. Some will be better at surviving than others. And so the genes for those traits that increase the chances of surviving will be passed on.

You know it isn't a conscious choice, right? No life form sits there thinking, "Gee, my life could be better, I'm going to evolve a little bit."

 

[Kylie]

because then its not stepwise anymore. it will be very unilekly. if the chance to evolve a a single trait is say one in a billion mutations then the chance to get 2 traits at once is about 10^18.

You really have no idea at all what you're talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As Steely Dan sang: "Turn up the Eagles the neighbors are listening"

They are being turned up.

Fly, Eagles, Fly!

 

[stevevw]

Can you show me someone who is qualified to make such a judgement about the evolution of the eye and claims evolution can't produce it?

The video I linked on the previous page is one example #728. This is an eye specialists who best knows about the makeup of the eye. As mentioned some of components that do seperate jobs need to be present together otherwise the associeted mechanism will not function. Yet it is impossible for random mutations to produce those different components at the same time. Also when a change is mutated such as say a lens is produced or a change in the lens strength this will not work without the connects to the brain. The chances of those happening at the same time are impossible and have never been produced in tests.

Like I said it is easy to cite a light sensitive patch as one stage of an eye and then a cup eye. But no one has ever explained how these happened and the smaller steps that go with them. There are around 50 odd components to a so called simple light sensitive patch. Plus no one has even explaned the other million plus components of the eye besides the simple examples given. It is assumed from the over simplistic examples that evolution by natural selection can do this.

Apart form this direct evidence that shows it is unlikley that neo Dawinism produced the complex eye there is the indirect evidence which I have posted showing that other mechanisms besides natural selection are responsible for complexity which I have posted previously. Such as this article which states that there is no evidence for the trend and increase in complexity to come from adpative evolution ie Neo-Darwinism by natural selection but rather from non adpative mechanisms.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Yeah, this isn't how evolution works.

Different traits evolve alongside each other. It's not one trait evolving completely, and then the other one comes after.

That is not how evolution works. If it did that would amount to evidence of design. As Dawkins says evolution is blind it does not know where it is going and what it needs to build complex features. So being about to mutate several right parts at the same time that all fit together like some flat pack from Ikea is impossible becuase of the fact it is random and blind. It would amount to the greate coincident ever. It has never been produced in lab tests and in fact even one mutation showing any greater function that what was already there is doubtful. Bacteria being able to become anti-bioctic resistant is actually a loss of function ot a gain.

Resistance to the antibiotic can occur by mutations in the 16S rRNA gene, which reduces the affinity of streptomycin for the 16S molecule (Springer et al., 2001). Reduction of specific oligopeptide transport activities also leads to spontaneous resistance of several antibiotics, including streptomycin (Kashiwagi et al., 1998). In these examples, resistance occurred as a result of the loss of a functional component/activity.

Besides anti-bioctic resistance has been around for thousands of years so it designed with the ability
Resistance to antibiotics is ancient
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm

Not just that if simple celled organisms are going to change and gain new genetic info it is going to be more likley because of HGT than evolution. Bacteria can also transfer DNA to humans
Bacterial DNA in Human Genomes
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/

 

[xianghua]

If something grows from a fertilized egg to make a multicellular creature that contributes to more fertilized eggs with DNA, then it is an animal and most likely can evolve. Your picture is not of such a creature.

why not? i already said that it has those living traits. so according to your criteria its not a watch. in such a case. (by the way you link above is broken).

 

[stevevw]

Because in any population of individuals there will be variation. Some will be better at surviving than others. And so the genes for those traits that increase the chances of surviving will be passed on.

You know it isn't a conscious choice, right? No life form sits there thinking, "Gee, my life could be better, I'm going to evolve a little bit."

I am not saying that. If you would have read the articles you will see that there are other mechanisms where living things dont have to rely on adpative evolution to change. The genetic info is already there and just needs to be switched on. When is an enviroment that puts them under pressure this can activate processes that can switch on and express genes in response that help them to adpat. Or when creatures are coexisting with other creatures and organisms they can co-evolve where genetic info is shared. The enviromentacts as a conduit.

Living things and the enviroment act and work together changing whole ecosystems. It isnt all about survival of the fittest or predator against prey. Much of life is designed to cohabitate and work as one big organism which changes all living things on an ongoing basis. It makes much more sense as well becuase we know there is a vast amount of DNA that is more functional than we realize and hqave recently discovered. Rather than creatures trying to find the right genetic info to change by a blind and random process that requires a lot of hit and miss they can just tap into the vast amount of pre-existing genetic info or recombine what is already there.

I have posted the evidence for this is you care to read it. It is quite interesting. The classic idea of Neo Dawinisn is changing as more discoveries are being made just like it changearound 100 years ago. Darin did not know and could not have known a lot of what is being found today.

 

[xianghua]

It's an interesting exception to a general rule of thumb, but that's all. Remember that evolution has no agenda. It's not there to create complex life forms. More adaptive life forms survive. Period.

but it doesnt fit well with the order in the fossil record. so again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it. simple logic. its not just exception but actually very frequent and we find many such cases.

We're talking about the evolution of life, and you are showing me cars? Say what?

its very simple. if we can arrange things in hierarchy without a common descent, then hierarchy doesnt prove common descent. and its true for the whale evolution too. i even said that even if cars we r e able to reproduce like a living thing it will not prove any evolution even in such case.

 

[xianghua]

No need to get into these imaginary creatures again....

so this isnt a watch but a creature if it has a self replicating system and organic components:

ok. but i dissagree with this conclusion. now, about the penguin vs robot. i think that we can say that a penguin is a kind of a robot but not every robot is a penguin.

 

[xianghua]

You really have no idea at all what you're talking about.

then show me my mystake.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this isnt a watch but a creature if it has a self replicating system and organic components:

Indeed. Just like the two men in this picture aren't robots, while the other two are:

Is it finally sinking in?

ok. but i dissagree with this conclusion.

So, the 2 men in the picture above ARE robots, just like the other 2 in the same picture? They are the same? We can refer to both with the same label of "robot"?

now, about the penguin vs robot

Or the human vs robot. It's a better example, since the picture is right here in this post and clear for all to see.

i think that we can say that a penguin is a kind of a robot but not every robot is a penguin.

Is a human a kind of robot?
Are the two men in the above picture a kind of robot?

If you would refer to all 4 in that picture with the term "robot", do you think people will agree to that? WOULD YOU?????



If you would ask anyone looking at that picture and ask them to point out the "kind of robot", do you REALLY believe that the correct answer would be any of the 4? That there would be no wrong answer?

You don't think that just about everyone and their mom, would point at the 2 actual robots and not the human men?

You don't think that if you would ask to point out the humans in the picture, that they would only point at the human men and not the 2 female-looking robots?

Just who are you trying to fool? Just how ridiculous will this "argument" get? And just how long will this continue before it sinks in?

So many questions.... so not expecting answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why not? i already said that it has those living traits. so according to your criteria its not a watch. in such a case. (by the way you link above is broken).

Just like robots aren't humans and humans aren't robots.

Like the many pictures I have posted now clearly demonstrate.
You even agreed to it. Yet, here you are... again claiming the same nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its very simple. if we can arrange things in hierarchy without a common descent, then hierarchy doesnt prove common descent.

Common descent through an evolutionary process can ONLY result in nested hierarchies.

And when talking product lines (artificial creation / engineering), then nested hierarchies is the very last pattern that is expected.

Not a single manufactured productline fits such a pattern. Not a single one.
Because it is wasteful, inneficient, costly and just plain stupid.

i even said that even if cars we r e able to reproduce like a living thing

They aren't.

it will not prove any evolution even in such case.

Not to mention that living reproducing things, wouldn't qualify as "cars".
Because cars, as explained a bazilion times now, are mechanical devices that are neither alive or dead - the concept simply does not apply to the object we refer to as "car".

A car is a device. Not an organism.

You might want to learn the difference. It's long overdue.

 

[Speedwell]

The classic idea of Neo Dawinisn is changing as more discoveries are being made just like it changearound 100 years ago. Darin did not know and could not have known a lot of what is being found today.

Very true, though you appear to be somewhat behind the curve on those changes. But how does that disprove the theory of evolution?