Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I have not. What I have seen are many instances of a creationist being confused about differences between the popular definition of a term and the scientific or technical usage.As much as you've been around, have you never seen that come up here before in any way shape of form?
No, I have not. What I have seen are many instances of a creationist being confused about differences between the popular definition of a term and the scientific or technical usage.
No, I have not. What I have seen are many instances of a creationist being confused about differences between the popular definition of a term and the scientific or technical usage.
Laugh if you like but consider, just as one example, how often creationists are confused about the popular meaning of "theory" and the scientific meaning.LOL.
Laugh if you like but consider, just as one example, how often creationists are confused about the popular meaning of "theory" and the scientific meaning.
The question keeps coming up in this forum: What if cars could reproduce? The answer of course, has been stated many times. Cars cannot reproduce and never could, at least not in anything close to their current form. However, the ubiquitous repeats of the question that I see here might justify a more detailed response.
First we need to resolve what we are talking about. Is this "car" made by making and assembling components like is done in a car factory? If so, does it use existing technology or futuristic technology? If not made by assembling parts, then the only conceivable way to make the next "car" is to grow it from a microscopic start. This is, of course, how living things do it. So we might postulate a car that is an animal, a plant, a fungus, a bacterium, or some kind of alien. A "car" that is a plant, fungus or bacteria seems unlikely, and any alien lifeform doesn't really add anything to the issues that apply to animal cars. So I will deal here with three possible kinds of self reproducing vehicles:
1) A machine shop on wheels.The machine shop on wheels hasn't gotten a lot of attention here. It is, however, a very real component of science fiction and futuristic thinking. Could we fly self reproducing machines to another planet and have them produce more and more copies of themselves until they dominate the planet and transform it into a place fit for human habitation? Then, a million years later, could people travel there to settle in to their new environment, complete with an army of mechanical slaves that maintain everything? Its an interesting thought, but not practical. For one thing making a machine that would mine steel and copper, make integrated circuits, machine an engine block, assemble it all together, while automatically maintaining itself and finding its own energy, is far too complex. Anybody who is familiar with automation understands that it requires human involvement for maintenance and error recovery. But perhaps, if we were smart enough, we could build a whole colony of machines of various types that could work as a team to do all the manufacture and maintenance of themselves. And in addition to all this activity, some of those machines could transport people.
2) A futuristic nanomachine shop on wheels.
3) An animal.
Obviously the first of these machines would be designed. What about the rest? Conceivably we could have the machines endlessly build copies of themselves. If we were really smart, we could program the machines with parameters that could be varied, and we could have computers adjust the parameters based on feedback from existing operations to fine tune the machines. And if we were smarter still, we could make programs that would respond to the environment and invent new parameters and complexities that could be varied. And so conceivably it would be possible for these machines to grow better with time. The original would be designed by humans, but the improvements would be designed by computers as programmed by humans.
All of that is conceivably possible, but so outlandishly difficult and expensive, I predict it will never be done.
That brings us to futuristic technology such as nanotechnology. Perhaps some day we could do this with smaller machines with future capabilities. Again I tend to be pessimistic about this. But regardless, we are dealing with a design by people and/or computers.
For more on self-reproducing mechanical machines see Self-replicating machine - Wikipedia.
Now lets look at the other possibility, the one that has gotten much more attention, that "cars" somehow might grow from a car embryo. Now obviously this cannot be a machine made of non-living matter, as cars currently are made. It would need to start as a single cell that divides to make more cells, that continue to divide to build the body. The engine block could not be a solid machined piece of metal, but would need to be composed of many cells that would grow the engine bigger with time.
As many have pointed out, this would basically be an animal. And there is no reason why an animal could not grow to be more carlike. A camel, for instance could conceivably grow wider and shorter with two humps made more comfortable for sitting, and could conceivably grow to resemble a car.
Would such a camel be designed? Here there has been some confusion about the use of the word "design". I tend to use a broad definition of the word, that animals are indeed "designed", but they are designed by "The Blind Watchmaker" as Dawkins might put it. The blind processes of mutation and selection produce the apparent design we see in animals. If the selection process is directed by intelligent beings, then we have a combination of the blind forces of nature and the intelligent agent making the design.
Although a wide camel might be more carlike, it is not a car. How close could an animal get to a car? I don't know. Obviously a living creature that grew from a single cell would need to be much different. Living creatures need a supply of energy and oxygen throughout the body, and a means of eliminating the waste. That basically means hearts, lungs, livers, blood vessels, kidneys or the equivalent. An animal with all this can hardly be called a car.
To really be car-like, it would need to grow wheels. Could an animal grow wheels? That is actually a topic of common debate. See Rotating locomotion in living systems - Wikipedia . There are tremendous difficulties. For one, wheels would not be practical for almost any creature. More importantly, the wheels really could not be made of living matter. To be made of living matter they would need a supply of blood and a means of getting rid of waste. There would need to be some way of getting nerves out there. How would you do this with a continuously spinning wheel? Now it is possible an animal could make dead wheels out of keratin, but such wheels would be an extreme problem as there would be no way to repair anything that breaks. Also I don't think a spinning wheel would receive the nutrients it needs to grow in the first place.
And there would need to be some way of attaching muscles to the moving axle. How would you do that?
For all of these reasons, wheels on a macroscopic scale are probably impossible for nature to solve.
And certainly such a "car" would not have computer chips, a transmission, or a radio. Such things are based on components that could not grow from a animal embryo.
So the bottom line is that a designed machine shop on wheels could in theory make other machine shops on wheels, and an evolved animal could evolve descendants that superficially resemble cars, but cars as we know them could not reproduce.
Animals reproduce because they grow from a single cell that makes other cells that divide out responsibilities as programmed by DNA. As such, animals can do things that non-living machines cannot do. Namely, they can produce fertilized eggs; these can grow into new adults; and, when the DNA varies, the offspring can be different and sometimes better adapted.
Animals can evolve. Cars cannot.
Congratulations, you got something right.and mutations + netural selection doesnt utrn a monkey into human either.
Close to a year now I have been reading this stuff about self reproducing cars and watches here. See , for instance, the self replicating watch argumentYou said...
"The question keeps coming up in this forum: What if cars could reproduce?"
Does that question keep coming up? Your OP is the first I've heard of it...and frankly, I thought this was a joke
There's a perfect example of what I said about words meaning different things to creationists. As an "evolutionist" I consider the bolded text to mean "who is" or "who has". I would use the word "whose" to indicate possession.Funny, coming from an evolutionists who's group admittedly change definitions when it convenient to their cause.
It wasn't relevant, it was dishonest. Please, try to keep up.I still have no idea how the comment we speak of was relevant.
Come on then tell us the difference between Theory used in every day language and Theory used in the scientific world.
That there are two definitions, a popular definition and a scientific definition and we didn't make up the scientific definition just to trick creationists.What exactly would be the point?
There's a perfect example of what I said about words meaning different things to creationists. As an "evolutionist" I consider the bolded text to mean "who is" or "who has". I would use the word "whose" to indicate possession.
It wasn't relevant, it was dishonest. Please, try to keep up.
It's been there for a while. You just don't get it, just as I see you don't get it with others.This conversation just fell into the realm of why bother anymore.
That there are two definitions, a popular definition and a scientific definition and we didn't make up the scientific definition just to trick creationists.
"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."Who said anyone made up the definitions to trick anyone? If you did, it was a frail attempt...I never was tricked or ever thought you could possibly trick anyone, so no, I never thought that.
I just thought it was funny....still do.
What was the not so popular definition again?
No, you are right. It never ceases to amaze me that we spend most of our time here trying to set creationists right about what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than defending it against substantive arguments.
Yet when it works for you, the simplest explanation being the most likely, IS a logical conclusion.
How logical is the unsupported nothing that started your evolution?
First there was, well, duh, uh, something, then y'all run with it, with some of the most ludicrous explanations possible and then claim, someone made it is illogical? Maybe it's the term "logical" you are having trouble with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?