the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

ok, but why actually?

I'm guessing, because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and he doesn't feel like lying to himself in order to uphold some fundamentalist beliefs that fly in the face of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this is also a stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle: a car, a jet fighter, a space shuttle.

1. it is not
2. false analogy

As explained a thousand times over.

 

[Ophiolite]

This thread shows a lot of effort in trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.

I think, if you look closely, it's worse than that. It is only a photograph of a round hole and the square peg is made of plasticine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But of course xianghua's predictable response will be, "well, let's pretend that we have a car that is made of organic components and can reproduce..."

And round and round this thread goes in an endless circle of ridiculous logic, monstrous reproducing fantasy cars, and utter insanity.

Indeed and this has been going on for +3000 posts.

The sad part is, is that all this nonsense was already addressed and corrected within 10 posts on page 1.​

What was it again, that Einstein said about insanity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Other than life on earth, no "matter" or chemicals have properties conducive to life.

What are you talking about? Water, for example, is the most common compound in the entire universe. None of the elements that make up the majority of our bodies are rare in the slightest. There is no reason to assume that elsewhere, on a similar planet to our own, similar life couldn't form.

Not only that, but who knows exactly how many different ways living organisms can develop? Maybe somewhere in our own galaxy are organisms that are silicon based instead of carbon based. We simply do not know enough about the formation of life to determine how probable it is that it formed on other planets.

Chemicals or minerals have no interest in self replicating
or any of that difficult stuff.

-_- are you seriously unaware that there are molecules that replicate other than DNA? For example, prions are proteins that replicate in that other proteins that come into contact with them almost always adopt the prion conformation, thus becoming another prion. And proteins do form naturally quite easily.

They just site there and degrade just as they desire to.

-_- chemicals have no emotions, desires, or interests. Stop personifying these things.

Furthermore, plenty of chemicals are stable such that they don't degrade in conditions suitable to their preservation.

 

[SkyWriting]

And proteins do form naturally quite easily.

They already come from living sources.
No law of nature or chemistry points toward life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They already come from living sources.

As well as from non-living sources in a variety of environments, as has been conclusively displayed by over 50 years of abiogenesis experiments. Proteins are some of the first life-relevant molecules to form in those entirely sterile, lifeless environments.

I swear, it's like you don't understand that chemical processes within cells don't defy chemistry. Amino acids are chemically attracted to each other and will link up to form proteins in solutions containing large enough numbers of them. Simple sugars can actually break down just in water. What cells do is catalyze natural reactions to make them go faster.

No law of nature or chemistry points toward life.

-_- I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. Sure, nothing makes life predestined to form as far as we are aware, but nothing chemically prevents it from being possible.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I am not sure that abiogenesis experiments produce proteins. What I have seen are precursors and then reasonable routes to RNA, etc.
The Miller–Urey experiment produced amino acids.
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

Maybe the reactions from amino acids to proteins are too slow to reasonably replicate in labs.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not sure that abiogenesis experiments produce proteins. What I have seen are precursors and then reasonable routes to RNA, etc.
The Miller–Urey experiment produced amino acids.
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

Maybe the reactions from amino acids to proteins are too slow to reasonably replicate in labs.

Researchers have produced polypetides by impacting ice laced with amino acids at high velocities to simulate delivery of organics by comets. However, none of these were as long chained as a protein.

 

[xianghua]

I think you should take a basic Biology 101 course and learn the difference between living and non-living things. You still appear confused about that.

Cars and space shuttles are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

they are actually very relevant. even you cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle. right?

 

[xianghua]

And yes, the similarities in our DNA points to common ancestry, similar DNA similar shape, genotype, phenotype. Lungs, two eyes, symmetry, head on the front of the body...

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right? we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.

 

[Speedwell]

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right? we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.

ID and evolution both predict common similarities. What you need is something ID predicts and evolution does not.

 

[pitabread]

they are actually very relevant.

No they are not. Learn the difference between living and non-living things, then come back to the discussion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

they are actually very relevant. even you cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle. right?

Answered hundreds of times. See https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-self-replicating-watch-argument.8005539/

 

[Speedwell]

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right? we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.

Oh, and it would also help if you had a proposed mechanism for the introduction of "design" into biological entities. Criticizing evolution's mechanism isn't enough.

 

[Ophiolite]

After 14 months and over 3,400 posts this thread does show evidence of ongoing self-replication, but precious little sign of any evolution.

 

[Blade]

This most likely will not make sense. Somethings ..i look up and wow that just flew by. Some speculation here yet.. no life in it. Well its as if Christ takes a look at some of the books we have. Say He picks one up and read through it.. puts it down says.. no life in it. Argument starts with a watch? I guess I am to simple..

Well I get lost with just thinking about clouds.. that hold the water to then rain where needed so to speak.. WOW. I can't even wake up with out getting slapped in the face GOD IS REAL!.. thanks anyway X

 

[RealityCheck01]

they are actually very relevant.

10 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance that cars and space shuttles are relevant to a thread about evolution.
You should know that a car is not an animal.
You should know that a space shuttle is not an animal.
You should know the basics of evolution.

You should know that there is 1 car that was designed to be a "space shuttle" !
Where Is Starman? Track Elon Musk's Roadster as It Zooms Through Space

 

[RealityCheck01]

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right?

Evidence that the designer exists comes first.
The main problem of postulating a designer is that this has no predictive power. That is a fundamental property of science. Science predicts. A designer who can do anything according to their whims cannot be predicted. That is not science.

You seem to have started the thread not knowing much about common ancestry and I see no sign that you have learned yet. Differences are almost as important as similarity.
Please read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right?

Wrong. Similarities are not evidence of design and therefore are not evidence of a designer.

Evolution predicts there will be similarities, therefore similarities are evidence for evolution. Design makes no predictions so similarities are not evidence of design.

we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.

But the similarities are not what lead us to infer design.