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.
Do you agree that this can be considered as Donald trump?thanks. now lets move on. do you agree that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot too?
So how would you "disprove" evolution? This should be good for a laugh.
Do you agree that this can be considered as Donald trump?
Being considered as Donald trump is not the same as "is Donald trump".
If you call a horse a car, how many cars are in this picture?so if this object were made naturally we cant call it a car since a car by definition need a designer?
(image from wiki)
If you call a horse a car, how many cars are in this picture?
Answer : one. It does not matter what you call a horse, it is still a horse.
Cars are manufactured from full size parts. Animals grow from a single cell to a multi-cellular adult. Can you seriously not see the difference?
You see, the simple thing is that evolution is a testable theory (and it has passed every test it has faced so far). But in order for a theory to be testable, it has to be FALSIFIABLE. That means that there has to be some conceivable way for it to be shown false.
so a self replicating robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?No, I never said that. You are clearly misinterpreting what I previously wrote and leaving out some important qualifiers.
I said that such an object would be a magical imaginary car with no basis in reality. It would not and never will be a real world object.
Do you understand the difference between real objects and imaginary ones?
Maybe some pictures will help.
Below is a real car. It is made of various materials including metal alloys, plastic, rubber and so on. It is not a living creature and cannot reproduce.
This is what you appear to be thinking of, an "organic" car possibly capable of reproducing:
I have no idea what the above thing would be made of as it is merely a drawing and doesn't otherwise exist in real life.
you are right. i already discuss about this in more details here:So how would you "disprove" evolution? This should be good for a laugh.
so a self replicating robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?
double negative intended?To deny that something as complicated as a car or a watch could not evolve is simply wrong and displays ignorance of Darwin's theory.
Kylie is not arguing against evolution. I'm bemused as to why you think she is. She has simply presented a suite of conditions that, were they to exist, would disprove evolution, or at the very least require a major overhaul of the system. This is standard scientific methodology. If one does not question theories one might as well become a reality TV star*.So why are you arguing against evolution? This thread is about the self-replicating watch argument (the clue is in the title). The car here is a proxy for the watch. To deny that something as complicated as a car or a watch could not evolve is simply wrong and displays ignorance of Darwin's theory.
Kylie is not arguing against evolution.
What specific characteristics must an object have to be recognized as a car?Yes she is. She is claiming that an object that we would recognise as a car could not evolve even if given the appropriate reproduction mechanisms and selection pressures. This, to my mind, is just daft and is a denial of evolution itself.
You just moved the goalposts. Your original statement read:Yes she is. She is claiming that an object that we would recognise as a car could not evolve even if given the appropriate reproduction mechanisms and selection pressures. This, to my mind, is just daft and is a denial of evolution itself.
Mechanical devices like cars can have their design changed.Yes she is. She is claiming that an object that we would recognise as a car could not evolve even if given the appropriate reproduction mechanisms and selection pressures. This, to my mind, is just daft and is a denial of evolution itself.
lets see. lets say that this object was able to reproduce, i still have no problem to call it a car (you do?):
(image from wiki)
They are not biological, so they can't undergo biological evolution. But they could certainly evolve if given some mechanism for reproduction and survival pressures. Why wouldn't they? All that is required is some sort of blueprint that can undergo errors.
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?