Self-driving car entrepreneur Elon Musk was actually talking about creating machines, not life, but the principle holds, says Bartlett:
When referring to the process of building a manufacturing plant, he said, “The extreme difficulty of scaling production of new technology is not well understood. It’s 1000% to 10,000% harder than making a few prototypes. The machine that makes the machine is vastly harder than the machine itself.” — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2020
Indeed, whatever the difficulty of creating life in the lab, making individual prototypes is not nearly as problematic as making “the machine that makes the machine,” which all reproducing living cells can do. That is, the ability of an organism to reproduce is at least an order of magnitude harder that the ability of an organism to just live.
Jonathan Bartlett, “Elon Musk Tweet Shows Why Many Doubt Origin of Life Studies” at Mind Matters News
He goes on to explain that the reason that creating a machine that manufactures or a cell that reproduces is much harder than creating a prototype of either is because it is a search for a search and “successful searches for searches are exponentially less likely to be productive than a search itself.”
Note: The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol.14 No.5, 2010 is open access.
You may also enjoy:
Can computers evolve to program themselves without programmers? How much computing power would we need to evolve the programmer’s intelligence via Darwinian evolution? Computer scientist Roman Yampolskiy explains why Darwinian evolution in computers wouldn’t likely produce an AI superintelligence.
Materialists can try to say hocus pocus.
“A search for a search” is meaningless wordsalad.
Elon is simply admitting that he should have listened to the previous EXPERIENCE of carmakers instead of arrogantly trying to use THEORY to build a factory.
In the current holocaust we’re seeing the horrible results of ignoring 500 years of EXPERIENCE in public health and arrogantly using bizarre delusional murderous THEORIES, which had never been imagined before, let alone used.
Experience survives. Theory kills. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
And when you follow experience, the road inevitably leads to God.
Elon Musk is an engineer.
i am an engineer too…
We engineers knows … Biologists (Darwinian clowns) don’t know… they never made everything … All what they have is an absurdly absurd theory…
Darwinian clowns infested the whole world with a very very absurd theory, perhaps it worked in 19th century, but today ? What is wrong with all these Darwinians ? There are lot of very clever people among Darwinians … Why do they claim such crazy absurd things ?
Thanks for this great article at MM, finally, some very clever people (e.g. Elon Musk) start to realize the technological sophistication of the cell …
Anyway, let me add to Elon Musk thoughts..
What most people don’t realize, is, that when you look at any species, there are always multiple layers of design
for example – a hummingbird
Layer #1: the design of the humming itself – the shape of the body, the shape / geometry of the wings, its weight, the frequency of its wing-flaps … in other words, lots of sophisticated design features need to be met so the hummingbird flies as it flies including the hovering-ability.
Layer #2: the design of hummingbird step-by-step self-assembly (biologists call it – the development). Because, as you may know, there are no workers, no parts / materials suppliers. There is nobody who assembles a hummingbird together. This self-assembly is an fully automated process, even in 21st century – an engineering SCIFI.
(Layer #2 – This is what Elon Musk was referring to)
Layer #3: the materials the hummingbird’s body is made of. All sophisticated materials, perfectly developed and adjusted to fulfill its function. What is remarkable, all these sophisticated materials, some very lightweight and strong, are developed at species’s body temperature, no fire of thousands of degrees is needed. Material-engineers can only wonder…
Layer #4: the design of automated maintenance / repair processes. Almost everything gets repaired. Broken bones, eye’s cornea, the skin,, even DNA molecule gets repaired… I am sure that a biologist could provide a very long list of what gets repaired.
I never understood how Darwinists imagine the evolution of any repair-process. How an unguided natural process with no foresight can ever recognize a problem (e.g. broken leg). How does unguided natural process know, that this leg needs to be repaired, when, and in what way. Any repair process is an undeniable proof of design.
i am sure that there are many other layers of species’ design … somebody may add to mine…
Moreover, i bet, that Elon Musk has no idea how complex the cell is … i bet, he never heard of DNA proofreading/repair machines (among other things). Like many lay people, Elon Musk only scratched the surface when speaking about a cell.
But obviously, Elon Musk begins to understand …
Elon Musk should invest all his money into research of how the cell ‘prints’ 3D objects. No 3D-printer is needed, no filament-tape is needed, no power grid is needed .. this is an engineering SCI-FI… and obviously, Elon Musk now recognizes it too …
As to:
I think that Jonathan Wells has a good illustration that gets this point across quite well,
And indeed, a supposedly ‘simple’ cell is far more complex than any factory, much less any machine, that man has ever built. As Michael Denton explained,
As Martin_r, (and engineer himself), stated, this simply is “engineering SCI-Fi”.
Moreover, not only do Darwinists not have any clue how such a self-reproducing factory, i.e. a ‘simple’ cell, can possibly come to be in the first place, Darwinists also have no evidence that such ‘engineering SCI-Fi’ in a simple cell can gradually evolve, and/or morph, into other fundamentally different self-reproducing factories.
As Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, explained ‘Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,’
Moreover, ancient bacteria spores recovered from amber crystals and salt crystals, which are tens to hundreds of millions of years old, have been ‘revived’, and have now been compared to their living descendants of today. To the disbelieving shock of Darwinists, “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”
Moreover, in terms of morphology, billion year old bacteria “surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” and the similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,”
Here are a few more references to drive this point home:
Shoot, Darwinists don’t even have any evidence that it is possible for a single protein molecule of that ‘self-reproducing factory’ to evolve, and/or morph, into a completely new protein molecule, much less do they have any evidence that it is possible for that self-reproducing factory to evolve, and/or morph, into another fundamentally different type of self-reproducing factory.
Ann Gauger and Doug Axe have found that Darwinian processes would need a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish a seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that requires just a few mutations.
And as David Berlinski and company further explained, “random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences.”
Thus, despite the fact that Darwinists have not one iota of evidence that it is possible to change a single functional protein into a fundamentally new functional protein, they still continue to believe that it is possible to randomly change, not only protein molecules, but also to randomly change a self-reproducing factory itself, i.e. a ‘simple’ cell, into a fundamentally new type of self-reproducing factory.
To believe that such is even remotely possible, as Darwinists do, is simply insane!
What is wrong with these people? Not only are Darwinists ignoring the science, they have also, apparently, completely lost their common sense in the process of believing Darwinian evolution.
Quote and verse
Martin_r:
Because it’s not a theory, it’s a religion.
Darwin desperately needed to remove God from his worldview. He shoved God from his throne and sat himself down there as god. The pinnacle of his imagined process.
Now they say: “I believe that the four fundamental forces, time, and energy are sufficient to produce all that I see around me.” They deny the power of His Word (information) that turns the above from chaos into the order that we see.
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Hebrews 1:3a
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
3 Martin_r
Sad but true. The problem is not with evolutionary science. The problem lies in materialists/ atheists trying to convert it into a metaphysics.
Evolution = theory.
Evolutionism = philosophy (and a very absurd one).