the self replicating watch argument

[Jon Osterman]

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.

Fine. I am happy to accept your personal definition of what you consider a car. That is up to you. But if you are going to include "cannot reproduce" as one of the central tennants defining a car, any argument based on a car to refute evolution becomes empty and meaningless. Do you not see this?

 

[pitabread]

But if you are going to include "cannot reproduce" as one of the central tennants defining a car, any argument based on a car to refute evolution becomes empty and meaningless.

Tell that to xianghua. He's the one who keeps bringing up this "reproducing car" nonsense.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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?

-_- it's kinda begging the question when you call it a car when you ask.

if you cant answer a theoretical question maybe this is the problem in our discussion.

The theoretical question in and of itself is useless; if living organisms have traits that MUST be designed, use an actual organism in your argument. You wouldn't have a reason to make up a fantasy organism unless real ones DON'T have traits that must be designed.

Consider this: not all designed items are designed through the same process. As a result, we do not use the same traits as indicators of design for every designed item. Even if living organisms such as humans are designed, the process by which they were was so different from how cars were designed that the comparison isn't useful. Not using an actual organism just hurts your own argument to the point that it is useless.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But if you are going to include "cannot reproduce" as one of the central tennants defining a car,

To be clear, xianghua has defined this reproduction as being like an animal reproduces. That is, a single cell grows to a multicellular car. That means it needs not only reproductive organs, but needs the means to keep all those cells supplied with food, water, and oxygen, and is going to need a means to get rid of the waste. So the "car" is going to need a heart, lungs, stomach, kidneys, arteries, etc. or the equivalent. In short, it is going to need to be an animal or the equivalent. And that is going to put all kinds of restrictions on what that critter can look like. The picture he posted had none of this.

A critter with lungs, liver, intestines, arteries and uterus is not a car.

My understanding is that you are talking about a car that reproduces itself by building all the parts and assembling them together. That is very different from what Xianghua is talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

--

 

[doubtingmerle]

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:

Huh? I just answered in post 2915 and again in 2919.

Are you deliberately trying to make this the stupidest thread ever in hopes of getting a commemorative t shirt?

 

[Kylie]

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)

*SIGH*

Please define a car for me.

 

[Kylie]

Fine. I am happy to accept your personal definition of what you consider a car. That is up to you. But if you are going to include "cannot reproduce" as one of the central tennants defining a car, any argument based on a car to refute evolution becomes empty and meaningless. Do you not see this?

Yeah, right...

I'm sure that when Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, his opponents were all saying, "Gee, I can't wait until cars are invented so we can show that he's wrong!"

If you need to invoke cars to disprove evolution, then you don't understand evolution.

 

[xianghua]

I already said that would make it an imaginary fantasy car.

great. so it will still be a car. as i said.

 

[xianghua]

-_- it's kinda begging the question when you call it a car when you ask.

so if this object were made naturally we cant call it a car since a car by definition need a designer?

(image from wiki)

 

[pitabread]

great. so it will still be a car. as i said.

It will be a magical imaginary car. Since in your imagination it can be anything you want.

That doesn't mean it has any relevance to the real world. So if you're trying to make any argument about real world evolution, your imaginary car won't help you.

 

[Jon Osterman]

If you need to invoke cars to disprove evolution, then you don't understand evolution.

So how would you "disprove" evolution? This should be good for a laugh.

 

[Jimmy D]

so if this object were made naturally we cant call it a car since a car by definition need a designer?

(image from wiki)

In the vain hope of moving on from this...

Yes, I will agree that the red thing pictured above can reproduce and occurs naturally... is that what you want to hear?



Now what?

 

[xianghua]

It will be a magical imaginary car. Since in your imagination it can be anything you want.

That doesn't mean it has any relevance to the real world. So if you're trying to make any argument about real world evolution, your imaginary car won't help you.

thanks. now lets move on. do you agree that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot too?

 

[pitabread]

thanks. now lets move on. do you agree that a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot too?

Why are you asking these same questions again? Everyone including myself given our answers (the answer is obviously no, a penguin is not and never will be a "robot").

I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over.

 

[bhsmte]

Why are you asking these same questions again? Everyone including myself given our answers (the answer is obviously no, a penguin is not and never will be a "robot").

I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over.

Maybe he is a robot.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe he is a robot.

That could explain a few things.

 

[xianghua]

Why are you asking these same questions again? Everyone including myself given our answers (the answer is obviously no, a penguin is not and never will be a "robot").

I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over.

but you agree that a car that made from organic components and has a self replicating system is still a car. so why not a robot?

 

[pitabread]

but you agree that a car that made from organic components and has a self replicating system is still a car.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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?

You can't use a purely imaginary object to try to make arguments about the real world in this fashion. Hence, if you are asking me about penguins and robots, not they are not the same thing and never will be the same thing.

Just like a real car will never be a living organism capable of reproduction. Only a magical imaginary car can do that. But since it's imaginary, who cares?

But you don't get it. If we can call a naturally occurring living organism a "car" then it must have been intelligently designed because we know that man-made "cars" are intelligently designed and consequently, naturalistic evolution must be false.