the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

When it comes to the origin of nanotechnology in a living cell, I suppose it's interesting to hear what one of the wold's leading chemists says about it. Dr. James Tour is an expert in synthetic organic chemistry and nanotechnology and he is one of the top 10 cited chemists in the world. He is one of the few people in the world who deals with the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch. He invented a nano-car (a molecular machine with wheels which moves similar to cars in the macro world). This is his open letter on the origin of life:
http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues
Here he talks live on that subject:
part1:

part2:

In this short video, he talks about the situation in the scientific community and the open challenge that he has given:

Those are sources to hear the opinion of one of the most competent people in the world when it comes to the origin of life and nanotechnology in a living cell. It's not my goal to get into the debate. I wanted to offer you new informations, and everyone has the freedom to accept those informations as he/she wants.

Wait, you are not going to tell us about pregnant cars and robot penguins? You are not going to tell us about stars revolving around a stationary earth? We are going to switch this thread away from fiction and talk about reality?

That's refreshing.

I found the link to James Tours interesting. He specifically states that he does not support intelligent design. His arguments center around the challenges of the origin of life and other stages of evolution. He is careful not to insert an intelligent agent when he sees a gap. He just emphasizes the gaps. On a professional level he seems to go along with evolution, but on a religious level seems to go with a literal genesis. And he seems to be conflicted between the two. He seems to be a mainstream scientist Monday through Friday and a creationist on Sunday. Or at least that is my take on what he says here: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/.

 

[xianghua]

To borrow doubtingmerle's example (see quotation below), do you accept that modern horses of the genus Equus are descended, by the familiar process of reproduction, from animals that lived at the same time as Merychippus, and that the animals that are now preserved as the fossil Merychippus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Eohippus?

i dont know because its possible that they are from the same family, and if this is true then its only variation of the same creature.

 

[xianghua]

What living traits does it have?

the ability to reproduce and organic components.

 

[xianghua]

That object does not have living traits.
You'ld have to show me one that does, before I can make any kind of assessment about it.

but i said it has in this case for the sake of the argument. so what you will conclude in such a case: design or a natural process?

 

[xianghua]

Traits can evolve together simultaneously.

yep. but the chance for that is very low. again: if a functional new trait need about billion mutation on average then the chance to get 2 such traits at once is about 10^18.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't know because its possible that they are from the same family, and if this is true then its only variation of the same creature.

First, I didn't ask whether modern horses (Equus) are descended from Merychippus or whether animals of the genus Merychippus were descended from Eohippus; I asked whether modern horses are descended from animals that lived at the same time as Merychippus, and whether animals of the genus Merychippus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Eohippus.

Second, if your answer to these questions is 'No', where do you think the first animals of the genus Equus came from, and where do you think that the first animals of the genus Merychippus came from?

Third, do you think that modern humans (Homo sapiens) are descended from animals that lived at the same time as Australopithecus, and that animals of the genus Australopithecus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Ardipithecus? Do you think that these three genera are all from the same family (Hominidae) and therefore only variations of the same creature?

 

[doubtingmerle]

yep. but the chance for that is very low. again: if a functional new trait need about billion mutation on average then the chance to get 2 such traits at once is about 10^18.

...so therefore the first zebra popped into existence out of thin air, with thousands of genes forming at once? Is that your view? What can possibly make you think this is more likely?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i said it has in this case for the sake of the argument. so what you will conclude in such a case: design or a natural process?

Neither.

I would conclude I was having a nightmare.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont know because its possible that they are from the same family, and if this is true then its only variation of the same creature.

Wait, so now you conclude that the horse may have evolved from a cousin of eohippus over the space of 50 million years? That is a huge amount of evolution you may accept.

And where did the first member of the horse "family" come from? Do you even have a view?

 

[Meowzltov]

if so even a human fossil with a dino one isnt a problem for evolution.

There is not a single example of a human fossil along with a dino fossil. Next.

and yet it doesnt prove any evolution. we can say the same for this progression:

Once again, non-life objects have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[xianghua]

There is not a single example of a human fossil along with a dino fossil. Next.

but we know about many other "out of place fossils" so it doesnt change what i said. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. agree?

Once again, non-life objects have nothing to do with evolution.

again: i said that in this case they are able to reproduce like a creature for the sake of the argument. so what you will say in such a case: they evolved from each other or they were designed?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

the ability to reproduce and organic components.

No, it doesn't. It really doesn't. No matter how often you make that claim, the reality is that there is no such thing as an organic watch/car/robot which can reproduce. Do you understand that?

 

[Kylie]

yep. but the chance for that is very low.

On what basis do you make this claim?

again: if a functional new trait need about billion mutation on average then the chance to get 2 such traits at once is about 10^18.

On what basis do you make this claim?

Also, remember that we are not talking about this being tried out one at a time. We have a whole boat load of individuals in a population, each of them trying out different variations.

 

[Kylie]

but we know about many other "out of place fossils" so it doesnt change what i said. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. agree?

*Sigh* Very well, provide examples of such out of place fossils...

again: i said that in this case they are able to reproduce like a creature for the sake of the argument. so what you will say in such a case: they evolved from each other or they were designed?

Your hypothetical situation doesn't work in reality, so why do you think it supports your argument?

IF non-living things could reproduce, and IF their offspring had subtle variations, THEN they would evolve.

But that doesn't happen in reality. Only in the make believe world of your hypothetical. And in that world, you can have whatever you want. I'm concerned with reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i said that in this case they are able to reproduce like a creature for the sake of the argument. so what you will say in such a case: they evolved from each other or they were designed?

Oh good, we are back to asking nonsense questions. I have one for you. If a triangle has four sides is it a triangle?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont know because its possible that they are from the same family, and if this is true then its only variation of the same creature.

Ok, all members of the same family are the same kind. Please define what you mean by "family". To scientists "family" has a distinct definition. For instance the felidae (cat) family has more than 40 different species including the lion, leopard, and domestic cat. See Felidae - Wikipedia . Are you saying all members of this family are the same creature and all evolved from a common ancestor?

 

[xianghua]

First, I didn't ask whether modern horses (Equus) are descended from Merychippus or whether animals of the genus Merychippus were descended from Eohippus; I asked whether modern horses are descended from animals that lived at the same time as Merychippus, and whether animals of the genus Merychippus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Eohippus.

Second, if your answer to these questions is 'No', where do you think the first animals of the genus Equus came from, and where do you think that the first animals of the genus Merychippus came from?

Third, do you think that modern humans (Homo sapiens) are descended from animals that lived at the same time as Australopithecus, and that animals of the genus Australopithecus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Ardipithecus? Do you think that these three genera are all from the same family (Hominidae) and therefore only variations of the same creature?

i will respond to your third question since its more clear case then the horse one. the first monkey appeared about 30 my ago and the first human about 3 my ago (homo genus). so if we assume that the age is true then human appeared after monkeys. i see no problem with this situation.

 

[xianghua]

...so therefore the first zebra popped into existence out of thin air, with thousands of genes forming at once? Is that your view? What can possibly make you think this is more likely?

if its was the result of design rather then a natural process the chance is actually very high.

Are you saying all members of this family are the same creature and all evolved from a common ancestor?

probably yes. why not?

 

[xianghua]

On what basis do you make this claim?



On what basis do you make this claim?

Also, remember that we are not talking about this being tried out one at a time. We have a whole boat load of individuals in a population, each of them trying out different variations.

let me ask you this: lets say that we focus only in a single new trait. say the first heart. what make you think that the sequence for forming heart is near other functional sequence in the sequence space? the sequence space for a single gene is huge (4^1000 possible combinations). so what make you think that every functional sequence is near other functional sequence?

 

[xianghua]

IF non-living things could reproduce, and IF their offspring had subtle variations, THEN they would evolve.

thanks. i dont think so. so we disagree about the self replicating cars example. you said that you will not conclude design and i do. fine.