What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[xianghua]

Such a thing would never exist in the first place so it's a moot point. This may come as a surprise to you, but your imagination is not reality.

Now will you drop these silly fantasies and just deal with reality? Or do we need to have this conversation again in a week?

but you said that it will not be a car anymore since it has a living traits. right? so according to that criteria its not a car.

 

[pitabread]

but you said that it will not be a car anymore since it has a living traits. right? so according to that criteria its not a car.

What I said was that if you change the fundamental properties of an object, it will no longer remain the same object.

Furthermore, because you're just inventing fantasy objects, they don't have any sort of concrete definition. Unless one can crawl inside your imagination, I have no idea what sort of things you are imagining.

This whole "self-replicating car" stuff you keep going on about is pointless.

 

[xianghua]

What I said was that if you change the fundamental properties of an object, it will no longer remain the same object.

right. so if a car will has a self replicating system and will made from organic components you will no call it a car. right?

 

[pitabread]

right. so if a car will has a self replicating system and will made from organic components you will no call it a car. right?

You need to stop asking the same questions over and over after you already have received an answer.

 

[Speedwell]

right. so if a car will has a self replicating system and will made from organic components you will no call it a car. right?

It is what it is. It doesn't matter what we call it. If we can tell it has been manufactured we know it has been designed. If it appears to be a naturally ocurring object then we can't tell.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so again: what you will say if you will find such a living car?

Oh. My. Gosh.

What would you say?

 

[xianghua]

Oh. My. Gosh.

What would you say?

that its the product of design of course. you dont?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so again: what you will say if you will find such a living car?

Cars are not alive. If you want to ask about living transport, ask me about a horse.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

right. so if a car will has a self replicating system and will made from organic components you will no call it a car. right?

Your questions are basic category errors; for example, if a bicycle has four legs an organic body like a horse, will you call it a bicycle?

If a helicopter has flippers and lives underwater will you call it a helicopter?

If a potato could carry a crew of three safely to the moon and back, would you call it a potato?

Answer: "NO!" in each case, because what you're describing is not a car, a bicycle, a helicopter, or a potato, respectively.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your questions are basic category errors; for example, if a bicycle has four legs an organic body like a horse, will you call it a bicycle?

You mean like a Longtail bicycle?

If a helicopter has flippers and lives underwater will you call it a helicopter?

You mean like a flying fish?

If a potato could carry a crew of three safely to the moon and back, would you call it a potato?

You mean like the Eagle that landed in '69?

 

[doubtingmerle]

that its the product of design of course. you dont?

No, as I have explained many times, it is impossible for cars to have babies. If I see a car have a baby that grows to be an adult car, I will think I have transported to a different universe with different physics, in which case all bets are off as to what physics may be like in that universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, as I have explained many times, it is impossible for cars to have babies. If I see a car have a baby that grows to be an adult car, I will think I have transported to a different universe with different physics, in which case all bets are off as to what physics may be like in that universe.

What if you saw a universe with an earth created before the sun? would you say all bets would be off there too?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What if you saw a universe with an earth created before the sun? would you say all bets would be off there too?

No.

As far as I know it might be possible for a planet to be flung into space only to be captured by a later evolving star, and thus that planet would be older than its sun.

 

[doubtingmerle]

that its the product of design of course. you dont?

And what process do you think caused that design? How do you know?

If you are talking about an animal, the design of all known animals comes from the DNA of its parents with variation, so I would say the "design" of that animal comes from the evolution history of its line of ancestry.

If you are talking about a robotic machine shop on wheels that builds copies of itself, then I would say the design came from blueprints from the engineers who built the first one. (Although theoretically possible, in practicality I don't think it will ever exist.)

But if you are talking about a non-living mechanical device that has babies that grows up to be adult cars, then, as has been explained to you many times, you are talking about something impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

As far as I know it might be possible for a planet to be flung into space only to be captured by a later evolving star, and thus that planet would be older than its sun.

You know what I meant.

 

[durangodawood]

so again: what you will say if you will find such a living car?

I will say the whole ethics of driving needs a fresh look.

 

[xianghua]

Your questions are basic category errors; for example, if a bicycle has four legs an organic body like a horse, will you call it a bicycle?

If a helicopter has flippers and lives underwater will you call it a helicopter?

If a potato could carry a crew of three safely to the moon and back, would you call it a potato?

Answer: "NO!" in each case, because what you're describing is not a car, a bicycle, a helicopter, or a potato, respectively.

so this isnt a car if it has a self replicating system and made from organic component according to your criteria:

 

[Speedwell]

so this isnt a car if it has a self replicating system and made from organic component according to your criteria:

It is what it is. It doesn't matter what we call it. If we can tell it has been manufactured we know it has been designed. If it appears to be a naturally ocurring object then we can't tell.

 

[xianghua]

And what process do you think caused that design? How do you know?

If you are talking about an animal, the design of all known animals comes from the DNA of its parents with variation, so I would say the "design" of that animal comes from the evolution history of its line of ancestry.

If you are talking about a robotic machine shop on wheels that builds copies of itself, then I would say the design came from blueprints from the engineers who built the first one. (Although theoretically possible, in practicality I don't think it will ever exist.)

But if you are talking about a non-living mechanical device that has babies that grows up to be adult cars, then, as has been explained to you many times, you are talking about something impossible.

i talking about this object, just with living traits:

you will conclude design or not in this case? i will conclude design of course, even if it has a living traits.

 

[Speedwell]

i talking about this object, just with living traits:

you will conclude design or not in this case? i will conclude design of course, even if it has a living traits.

Why? Because it "looks like" a manufactured car? That's not evidence of design. It doesn't matter what we call it or what it superficially resembles. If we can tell it has been manufactured we know it has been designed. If we can't determine that it has been manufactured then we can't conclude design.