the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.

And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.

Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.

 

[quatona]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it have those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall process (because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

Just wondering: Would a designer have to come into being by a "naturall (sic!] process" or by "design"?

 

[Skreeper]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it have those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall process (because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:

A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.

Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.

We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.

 

[xianghua]

s

I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.

And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.

Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.

so basically you are saying that a watch isnt an evidence for design. i guess that most peoples will claims otherwise.

 

[xianghua]

There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:

A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.

Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.

We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.

so a self replicating watch doesnt need a design? ok. its only a belief. not science.

 

[Skreeper]

so a self replicating watch doesnt need a design? ok. its only a belief. not science.

Not my problem you don't know how humans recognize design. I'm just hoping you'll eventually stop using the "self replicating x" argument because it's nonsense.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it have those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall process (because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

flagellum‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

The division of a day into hours/minutes/seconds is a human invention. Any device used to measure time according to those units must therefore also be a human invention. A watch is an example of such a device. So a self replicating watch made of organic components would, by necessity, be a human invention and therefore demonstrate design. But since such a thing does not exist this whole argument is nonsense. We wouldn't just find such a thing in nature.

This whole approach of using fantasy and imaginary objects is nonsensical and really not a great argument against reality.

 

[xianghua]

The division of a day into hours/minutes/seconds is a human invention. Any device used to measure time according to those units must therefore also be a human invention. A watch is an example of such a device. So a self replicating watch made of organic components would, by necessity, be a human invention and therefore demonstrate design.

so what about a spinning motor? we know that humans also make such a device.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so what about a spinning motor? we know that humans also make such a device.

Also? Nature doesn't make spinning motors. And spinning motors do not self-replicate

 

[Speedwell]

so what about a spinning motor? we know that humans also make such a device.

I assume you are talking about a flagellum ("spinning motor" is a bit of an exaggeration) and yes, humans make similar devices which turn on bearings, but so what? That "spinning" motion is not in itself evidence of design. If the device gives evidence of being manufactured by humans then it may be possible to conclude that it was designed. Otherwise it may not be possible to come to a conclusion. One can't conclude design merely from complexity and functional organization.

When are you going to get it? When are you going to learn how design is detected in an object?

 

[xianghua]

Also? Nature doesn't make spinning motors.

there are actually spinning motors in nature:


A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[durangodawood]

....because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.

I thought these irreducible-complexity arguments had been totally put to bed.

 

[Skreeper]

there are actually spinning motors in nature:


A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

Just because it performs a similar function doesn't mean it's the same thing.

 

[pshun2404]

Just wondering: Would a designer have to come into being by a "naturall (sic!] process" or by "design"?

Examine the argument of Aristotle's uncaused cause, then Aquinas's and Anselem's consideration of that point and then get back to me

 

[quatona]

Examine the argument of Aristotle's uncaused cause, then Aquinas's and Anselem's consideration of that point and then get back to me

Been there, done that.
Consider the plentyfold refutations of their arguments and then get back to me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

there are actually spinning motors in nature:


A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

OK, I think we're using different meanings of spinning motor (I was thinking along the lines of a stand alone machine, not an integral part of an organism) but I'll give you that one. But you need to understand that those motors do not self replicate, so your argument still falls flat on its face.

 

[Abraxos]

There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:

A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.

Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.

We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.

This isn't even comparable. Irreducible complexity deals with individual parts that are not only reliant on another individual part, but all these parts are required to work in unison for the whole purpose (a cell) to function.

These molecular motor proteins are literally walking on the microtubules. This is the signal broadcasting system inside a living cell. These 'couriers' are being sent out as the stop signal in readiness for the transition of mitosis. For cell division to function there are many processes in work with many different kinds of proteins 'assigned' to a particular job and it's all 'mechanical' and molecular clockwork when to cell divide.

A snowflake is nice to look at, I guess, but it's not even in the same ballpark.

 

[pshun2404]

Been there, done that.
Consider the plentyfold refutations of their arguments and then get back to me.

I was not saying you did not make a good point, it is just that that question in this forum is absurdum as infintum because a Creator with no beginning or end would neither arise naturally (being the maker of that which is called Nature) or be designed since design was His idea (it started with Him/It)

 

[quatona]

I was not saying you did not make a good point, it is just that that question in this forum is absurdum as infintum because a Creator with no beginning or end would neither arise naturally (being the maker of that which is called Nature) or be designed since design was His idea (it started with Him/It)

So you are pointing out that the dichotomy presented by the OP "by natural process or by design" is (or at least might be) a false one. Exactly my point.
(Andplease keep in mind that when I respond to an OP, I am responding to what reads there - not to arguments other people may have made in different contexts. )