Disassemble it completely so you just have a pile of components, use that pile of components as a paper weight. Now you add all the components needed to make a GPS, and remove the components from the cellphone. Now assemble the gps from the components in the pile. There you go!
this is the problem: a gps contain many parts. so we need to add at least several parts to the pile. again; no small steps.
Add them one at a time to the pile of components until you have all the parts needed.
A hundred+ years of synthetic organic chemistry, almost the entire pharmaceutical industry, etc.
What I’m driving at here is, I don’t think you’re being quite specific enough about your argument. If you’re simply saying organic cell phone -> organic GPS vis small steps, then well, that’s just a matter of finding the right set of reactions (i.e. synthetic organic chemistry). We do that all the time, just not on that scale. So, assuming scientists were able to create an organic cell phone (which is your starting point), presumably they know how to build all the components of the cell phone via chemistry, and so to simply rearrange those component parts into a GPS is really not any great leap at all.
No, it isn’t. You were attempting to tell us how T_aquaticus (and other evolutionists) define “functional.”
An evolutionist such as @T_aquaticus takes “functional” to mean having any function whatsoever that is useful to the organism (such as serving as a paper weight).
I thought what you wrote was nonsense.
No, we don’t. All we need is function, and it functions just fine with just a case.
Living organisms and cell phones are vastly different. You can look at a cell phone’s parts and functions and use them to describe your reasons for accepting Intelligent Design, but what is true of a cell phone cannot by directly compared to what is true of living things. There is a huge difference between an analogy for explanatory purposes and actual evidence.
When will Trust Level 0 become part of @moderator options?
. a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
You can remove all of the parts from the inside of the cell phone and it still has function as a door stop.
There’s nothing in evolution which prohibits the function from changing over time.
but why to select the gps parts when any part can be used as a paperweight?
but no one can do it because such small steps dont exist. can you take a gps and change it stepwise into a phone?
but who will choose the case with the shape of a cell-phone? any shape can function as a paperweight so any shape can be selelcted.
but in this case we have no evidence that its not the same. for instance: both a cell-phone and a biological system need several parts for their minimal function. and both will stop to function (in many cases) if some parts will be removed. also remember that i talked about a cell-phone that is made from organic components. so its basically a “living watch”.
Because that was the challenge you set when you began this thread:
now, say that we want to change it stepwise into other system like a gps or vice versa. can we do it by small steps?
So the answer is yes, we can do that. We can now close this thread.
There you go. You have just stumbled upon the start of an evolutionary pathway.
Really? You feel that there is no evidence that the components of a cell phone are different from the components of a living cell? If this is the case in your mind, I understand now why you are enamored by these analogies. But this is also where a scientific discussion ends.
Sorry, your hypothetical, organic “living watch” is not evidence, either.
Would it still be a cell phone, or would it be a door stop?
It would be a door stop which has function.