the self replicating watch argument

[PsychoSarah]

I don't even understand why xianghua would want to use a self replicating car in his hypothetical situations, or a watch in others. If he could make an argument for goldfish being designed, then why not use goldfish in the example? Why use things so dissimilar to actual living organisms that at the end of the day, he'll only demonstrate that cars and watches couldn't have evolved... which we already know.

If living organisms obviously have traits that demand design over evolving over time, one wouldn't need to make up an organism for this argument.

 

[pitabread]

I don't even understand why xianghua would want to use a self replicating car in his hypothetical situations, or a watch in others.

Seems to be a surrealist extension of Paley's famous watch argument. I suppose if nothing else, it's been entertaining.

 

[Kylie]

i dont know. there is a limit where we can change a car without making it a car anymore. i dont know where is the limit but no one know actually. now, do you agree that a car that is able to reproduce is a car or not? its very simple question.

No I don't, and you have said why.

If there is a limit to how far we can change a car before it isn't a car anymore, how do you know that limit isn't passed when it is able to reproduce?

 

[Kylie]

A car was mentioned in this thread as an example of a complicated object that couldn't evolve and therefore must be created. We have pointed out that an object fitting reasonable definitions of a car could evolve if given some additional properties. The response seems to be that these additional properties, in your view, stop the object being a car.

It would be car-like, but it wouldn't be a car. An analogy - a group of mammals went from land dwelling to become more and more aquatic. The descendants today include the dolphins. These fill the same sort of niche as sharks - fast and nimble predators of fish. And when you look at a shark next to a dolphin, you see many of the same features. You could say that the mammals evolved to be more and more shark-like, but you would never say that they are the same thing.

In other words, your argument is "car's can't evolve because if an object that functions and looks like a car could evolve, then it wouldn't be a car". Is that a fair representation of your position? Do you see the circular logic here?

As I have said, such an object would be car-like, but it wouldn't be a car. Cars, by definition, are built in factories.

No. Early mammals reproduced and evolved into humans, but we don't give these species the same names or regard them as the same thing.

No, but we still call both them and us mammals, don't we?

 

[Kylie]

say like a living creature. it will be a car in this case or not?

So, do they lay eggs or give birth to live young? Where in the parent car's body do they grow? Do the parents reproduce asexually, or do the cars have genitalia? If so, are they penis and vagina as in humans, or something else?

You seem to be expecting us to do the heavy lifting for your ideas. But since it's your idea, you figure out the details.

 

[xianghua]

Obviously it would not be a car since a living creature would be fundamentally different than a car. And a car (as manufactured) is fundamentally different than a living creature.

Things that are fundamentally different cannot be the same thing. Even children know this.

since we are talking about the self replication trait its not "fundamentally different". so a car with a self replication system is still a car.

 

[pitabread]

since we are talking about the self replication trait its not "fundamentally different". so a car with a self replication system is still a car.

You claimed it would be the same as a living creature. Therefore it not only would not be the same thing as a car (a non-living, artificially manufactured object) , it actually couldn't be the same thing due to basic object identity and definition.

To ignore that fact is again making an argument based on the False Equivalence fallacy.

 

[xianghua]

A horse that resembles a car is far different from a mechanical car.

Animals can do some things non-living machines cannot do. Non-living machines can do some things that animals cannot do.

Things that non-living cars can do that unmodified animals probably never will do include have computer chips, have a welded chassis, survive the high temperatures of an internal combustion engine, and have a transmission.

but i asked you a theoretical question: if we will find such a car with a self replicating system, it will be a car or not? if you cant answer a theoretical question maybe this is the problem in our discussion.

 

[xianghua]

If there is a limit to how far we can change a car before it isn't a car anymore, how do you know that limit isn't passed when it is able to reproduce?

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)

 

[xianghua]

You claimed it would be the same as a living creature. Therefore it not only would not be the same thing as a car (a non-living, artificially manufactured object) , it actually couldn't be the same thing due to basic object identity and definition.

To ignore that fact is again making an argument based on the False Equivalence fallacy.

so this isnt a car if it had a creature traits:

ok. i think otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

so this isnt a car if it had a creature traits:

ok. i think otherwise.

That is an artificially manufactured car. It is not a living creature.

You can't just post a picture of something and then claim it's something different than what it is. A car doesn't become a living creature just because you say it is.

You can think "otherwise" all you want; all that says is that you don't care about making a fundamentally illogical argument.

 

[xianghua]

That is an artificially manufactured car. It is not a living creature.

but i said that in this specific case it does have living traits. so its a car or not under this scenario?

 

[pitabread]

but i said that in this specific case it does have living traits. so its a car or not under this scenario?

That car you posted a picture of does not having living traits. Again, you can't post a picture of a real world object and then arbitrarily redefine it. That's not how this works.

Now if you want to invent a fantasy car with living traits then go ahead. But it would be a fantasy object which exists only in your imagination.

Perhaps you could draw us a diagram of such an object and post that instead.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i asked you a theoretical question: if we will find such a car with a self replicating system, it will be a car or not? if you cant answer a theoretical question maybe this is the problem in our discussion.

Answering the question is no problem.

The problem is finding a way to keep you from repeating the same question over and over that I have answered several times. That is the hard task.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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)

You showed a picture of a car. But when we ask what you are talking about you seem to be describing a horse.

Why show a picture of a car when talking about a horse?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i said that in this specific case it does have living traits. so its a car or not under this scenario?

It's questions like this that have caused some to call this thread, "Truly one of the stupidest threads ever".

 

[xianghua]

That car you posted a picture of does not having living traits.

but i said it does for the sake of the argument. so you dont want to answer this . fine.

 

[xianghua]

It's questions like this that have caused some to call this thread, "Truly one of the stupidest threads ever".

so you dont wnat to answer a simple theoretical question. fine. i do think that this object is a car, even in a theoretical case when it has a self replicating system. you dont think so? ok:

 

[pitabread]

but i said it does for the sake of the argument. so you dont want to answer this . fine.

I already said that would make it an imaginary fantasy car. So you've now got a fantasy car that has living traits.

So what?

 

[pitabread]

you dont wnat to answer a simple theoretical question

A theoretical question needs to be based on theory. There's no theory here, only fantasy.

And any argument based on fantasy will only ever be fantasy.