the self replicating watch argument

[Kylie]

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.

I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm very much on the PRO-evolution side.

But things that have evolved display characteristics that simply aren't present in manufactured items. I'm calling into question the validity of the analogy, not the fact of evolution itself.

In any case, I don't get you. You ask me for what would disprove evolution, and when I present you with such things, you immediately say that I am arguing against evolution?

Do you understand that pointing out how something could be falsified is very different to claiming something is false?

I say evolution is falsifiable. But I do not claim it is false. There's a big difference.

 

[Kylie]

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.

I've been through this whole thing with this guy before. His argument boils down to, "If we give manufactured things the ability to evolve, then it shows that manufactured things are able to evolve. Therefore, things that evolve are manufactured." It's simply terrible logic and he doesn't seem to get it. Firstly, it equates his hypothetical with reality when there is no basis for doing so, and he also assumes that if B is a subset of A, then A must also be a subset of B, which is just not true. I'm through humouring his nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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. (And of course, plenty of time and resources.)

Ok, this is different from xianghuas fictitious biological cars.

Can a car design change with time? Of course. All you need is engineers to change the drawings.

Could we do mechanical design without engineers (and put me out of work)? Well yes, some of this is done by computers already, but we are a long way from computers doing the high level design.

We have parametric drawings where the engineer only has to specify a few parameters and the computer adjusts the drawing and the machining center to make a part to those parameters. So if we had artificial intelligence in computers to adjust the many possible parameters in a car, and perhaps some sort of genetic algorithm to do a preliminary selection process, we could theoretically ask the computer to design a car that is better.

Your point is?

 

[doubtingmerle]

In any case, I don't get you. You ask me for what would disprove evolution, and when I present you with such things, you immediately say that I am arguing against evolution?

I was wandering if that question was a trap and it looks like it was.

It is hard to understand what jon is saying. He seems to be mixing sarcasm with unclear statements, double negatives, and trap questions . Looks to me like we need to tread lightly and not step on any mines.

 

[The Barbarian]

so basically you are saying that a watch isnt an evidence for design.

It's evidence that creatures design. Paley used a watch, designed by mere creatures, because if he had used something created by God, no one would see the design.

For example, prokaryotic flagella have simpler forms, which are still functional. One of them has an entirely different function. Likewise the complex transport proteins you pictured, have simpler precursors that don't "walk."

Since the watch did not have simpler natural precursors, we can safely assume it was designed by a limited creature. Because the prokaryotic flagellum clearly has simpler precursors, we can conclude it was created by an omnipotent God, and not designed.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Could we do mechanical design without engineers (and put me out of work)? Well yes, some of this is done by computers already, but we are a long way from computers doing the high level design.

It doesn't matter how far away it is, technologically speaking. What matters is whether or not it can be done in principle. I hold that it can.

We have parametric drawings where the engineer only has to specify a few parameters and the computer adjusts the drawing and the machining center to make a part to those parameters. So if we had artificial intelligence in computers to adjust the many possible parameters in a car, and perhaps some sort of genetic algorithm to do a preliminary selection process, we could theoretically ask the computer to design a car that is better.

Your point is?

The point is that if cars could indeed produce new cars (and adjust the design randomly) and then apply a selection/survival criterion, cars would evolve. So, the original premise of this thread (that complicated mechanical objects can't evolve) is false.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is that if cars could indeed produce new cars (and adjust the design randomly) and then apply a selection/survival criterion, cars would evolve. So, the original premise of this thread (that complicated mechanical objects can't evolve) is false.

Since genetic algorithms, it's clear that specifications can evolve (and become more fit thereby). So I guess we should say that mechanical devices can't presently evolve.

Von Neumann machines have been conceptually around for a long time:
Self-replicating spacecraft - Wikipedia

 

[Ophiolite]

It doesn't matter how far away it is, technologically speaking. What matters is whether or not it can be done in principle. I hold that it can.



The point is that if cars could indeed produce new cars (and adjust the design randomly) and then apply a selection/survival criterion, cars would evolve. So, the original premise of this thread (that complicated mechanical objects can't evolve) is false.

I was going to disagree with the logic of your post, but when I looked I couldn't find any.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, the original premise of this thread (that complicated mechanical objects can't evolve) is false.

If by "evolve" you mean "change", I was not aware of anybody here that said mechanical objects cannot have design changes.

If anybody is saying that, then go gettum, tiger!

 

[Eloy Craft]

Here's a car

 

[xianghua]

Since the watch did not have simpler natural precursors

sure it have:

Silver - Wikipedia

Because the prokaryotic flagellum clearly has simpler precursors, we can conclude it was created by an omnipotent God, and not designed.

so we both agree that the flagellum is the result of design?

 

[xianghua]

The point is that if cars could indeed produce new cars (and adjust the design randomly) and then apply a selection/survival criterion, cars would evolve.

i dont think so. since a minimal car need at least several parts it cant evolve stepwise by evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Because the prokaryotic flagellum clearly has simpler precursors, we can conclude it was created by an omnipotent God, and not designed.

so we both agree that the flagellum is the result of design?

Created, not designed. As engineers have learned, evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. God, as usual, knew best.

 

[The Barbarian]

i dont think so. since a minimal car need at least several parts it cant evolve stepwise by evolution.

Scaffolding would work. For example, the "walking" transport protein didn't pop out of nowhere. It has simpler antecedents that didn't walk. Bacterial flagella are composed of simpler units that have other uses in the cell.

Picture an arch:

Remove even one stone in the arch, and it all comes down. So how did they build it? Scaffolding, which was later removed. A lot of evolution is like that.

 

[xianghua]

Created, not designed.

what is the difference?

 

[xianghua]

Scaffolding would work. For example, the "walking" transport protein didn't pop out of nowhere. It has simpler antecedents that didn't walk. Bacterial flagella are composed of simpler units that have other uses in the cell.

Picture an arch:

Remove even one stone in the arch, and it all comes down. So how did they build it? Scaffolding, which was later removed. A lot of evolution is like that.

actually the ttss and the flagellum shared parts are no the same at all. only similar. more than that: even if they were identical, what is the chance to mix about say 10 parts in the genome to form the flagellum by mixing parts from other system in the cell?

 

[The Barbarian]

actually the ttss and the flagellum shared parts are no the same at all.

No, that's wrong:

more than that: even if they were identical, what is the chance to mix about say 10 parts in the genome to form the flagellum by mixing parts from other system in the cell?

So what would have to happen to make this into a flagellum? The rod would have to rotate more efficiently, and it would have to be longer. Neither of these would be that difficult under natural selection. If the apparatus provided any motion at all, subsequent mutations increasing efficiency would certainly be favored.

However, the evidence shows that both of these structures evolved from a common structure and neither gave rise to the other (see below)

 

[pitabread]

even if they were identical, what is the chance to mix about say 10 parts in the genome to form the flagellum by mixing parts from other system in the cell?

You might be interested in this, if you haven't already seen it: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.​

 

[doubtingmerle]

so we both agree that the flagellum is the result of design?

So we both agree that you make up things people never said and pretend they agree with you?

And we both agree that you have a book that says bearing false witness is wrong?

 

[The Barbarian]

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Oct 5; 370(1679): 20150020.
Type III secretion systems: the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome
Andreas Diepold and Judith P. Armitage

The flagellum and the injectisome are two of the most complex and fascinating bacterial nanomachines. At their core, they share a type III secretion system (T3SS), a transmembrane export complex that forms the extracellular appendages, the flagellar filament and the injectisome needle. Recent advances, combining structural biology, cryo-electron tomography, molecular genetics, in vivo imaging, bioinformatics and biophysics, have greatly increased our understanding of the T3SS, especially the structure of its transmembrane and cytosolic components, the transcriptional, post-transcriptional and functional regulation and the remarkable adaptivity of the system. This review aims to integrate these new findings into our current knowledge of the evolution, function, regulation and dynamics of the T3SS, and to highlight commonalities and differences between the two systems, as well as their potential applications.


Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events
Gene 312, 151–163
Uri Gophnaa Eliora Z. Rona Dan Graurb

Abstract
Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems.