the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

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

Do you agree that this can be considered as Donald trump?

Being considered as Donald trump is not the same as "is Donald trump".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I will agree that the red thing pictured above can reproduce and occurs naturally

Look what Jimmy D says. He agrees with @xianghua.

You've set yourself up for a quote mine mate. That's all he's looking for

 

[Kylie]

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

A fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks is a good example and has been often used. But I'd also accept anything which does not fit into a nested hierarchy. A fish with feathers, for example. An amphibian with mammalian teeth.

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.

For example, the claim that I am a human is falsifiable. You could perform surgery on me and find that my innards are filled with gears and pistons and circuit boards. Since that totally contradicts what it means to be Human, then the claim that I am human would be falsified.

And likewise, evolution says that certain things simply can't happen. I listed a few of them above. You can find more information here: What would disprove evolution?

 

[Kylie]

Do you agree that this can be considered as Donald trump?

Being considered as Donald trump is not the same as "is Donald trump".

No way, that's much more attractive!

 

[Skreeper]

Do you agree that this can be considered as Donald trump?

Being considered as Donald trump is not the same as "is Donald trump".

How incredibly insulting! That poor orangutan is magnificent and it doesn't even have orange skin! Shame on you for insulting such a beautiful specimen with your distasteful comparison.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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?

 

[Skreeper]

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?

That horse on the left looks like a rather old model, not sure what that car on the right is supposed to be though or why the penguin robot is riding it. Very strange.

 

[Jon Osterman]

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 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.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so a self replicating robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?

 

[xianghua]

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

you are right. i already discuss about this in more details here:

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

 

[pitabread]

so a self replicating robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?

Instead of just asking the same questions over and over, why don't you try to put some understanding in what I previously wrote and then ask something more meaningful.

Because right now it looks like you aren't even reading what people are writing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

double negative intended?

If so, I agree that those who say cars can undergo Darwinian evolution don't understand evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

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. 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*.

*My original comparison would undoubtedly have invoked the wrath of the moderators, hence this substitute. No reality TV stars were harmed in the construction of this comparison.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Kylie is not arguing against evolution.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

What specific characteristics must an object have to be recognized as a car?

 

[Ophiolite]

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:

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.

Now you have amended that statement in a significant way, thereby altering entirely the sense it conveys. It now reads

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.

I do not recall Kylie commenting on a car with "appropriate reproduction mechanisms". She was addressing the concept of cars, as we know them, and noting the idea of them evolving was silly.

Regardless, you are missing the central thrust of Kylie's post - namely, the provision of evidence that would allow evolutionary theory to be falsified. Without such possibility of falsification no theory can be considered sound/viable.

(Kylie, please correct me if I am misrepresenting your intent on any of this.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

They cannot have babies and cannot undergo biological evolution.

Do you agree?

 

[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)

If this was able to be Babe Ruth, is she then both Melania Trump and Babe Ruth?

 

[Jon Osterman]

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

 

[pitabread]

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.

The problem is that xianghua wants something that is biological AND capable of undergoing biological evolution AND would be defined as a "car" in the same context as the artificially manufactured vehicles we have today AND would not be able to evolve, so that he could claim it can only arise via deliberate manufacture.

It's a thoroughly nonsensical argument rife with logical errors.