Intelligence Inquiry

The Transcendentian said:

I believe micro-evolution is real and happens all the time, but macro-evolution is not real.

Click to expand...

I love when people say this. So uninformed and nobody has yet answered this simple question.

Since only thing separating micro-evolution form macro-evolution is time what prevents micro-evolution becoming macro evolution as time passes ?

Jonathan Walkerin said:

Since only thing separating micro-evolution form macro-evolution is time what prevents micro-evolution becoming macro evolution as time passes ?

Click to expand...

God is a god of boundaries,

Psalm 104:9a Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;

... and He has apparently set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

What that boundary is specifically I don't know.

I would guess it is sterility.

AV1611VET said:

He has apparently set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

What that boundary is specifically I don't know.

Click to expand...

That is lots of "apparently" and "do not knows" in so short sentences. I am proud of you AV , you are already starting sound like a scientist.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

I love when people say this. So uninformed and nobody has yet answered this simple question.

Since only thing separating micro-evolution form macro-evolution is time what prevents micro-evolution becoming macro evolution as time passes ?

Click to expand...

I have a hypothesis that God encoded an evolution boundary into the DNA of all living things.
in Genesis 1:11, 1:21, and 1:24, God says for each to reproduce after their kind.

In what you believe to be true about the universe the "only thing separating micro-evolution from macro-evolution is time".

I would very much like for there to be an advanced technology that would allow super-speeding up time (if a gravity well slows down time, then a gravity tower would speed it up) in a laboratory self contained ecosystem. In a set up like that, put some plants and animals and micro-organisms in, adjust the time reverse-dilator to about 10 billion, and watch the life evolve (or not).

The Transcendentian said:

I have a hypothesis that God encoded an evolution boundary into the DNA of all living things.

Click to expand...

To confirm your hypothesis you only have to physically demonstrate this "encoded evolution boundary"
and you can grab your Nobel prize. When do you expect this momentous occasion in human history will happen ?

Jonathan Walkerin said:

To confirm your hypothesis you only have to physically demonstrate this "encoded evolution boundary"
and you can grab your Nobel prize. When do you expect this momentous occasion in human history will happen ?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe in a decade or so, maybe never.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

To confirm your hypothesis you only have to physically demonstrate this "encoded evolution boundary"
and you can grab your Nobel prize.

Click to expand...

I'm more interesting in crowns than Nobel prizes.

Psalm 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Psalm 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

The Transcendentian said:

I don't know. Maybe in a decade or so, maybe never.

Click to expand...

I have a pretty fair guess which one it will be.

AV1611VET said:

I'm more interesting in crowns than Nobel prizes.

Click to expand...

Light-Up Unicorn Crown

There you go. Should be a required accessory for every creationist intending to overturn evil scientific theories.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

Light-Up Unicorn Crown

There you go. Should be a required accessory for every creationist intending to overturn evil scientific theories.

Click to expand...

"Channel your inner unicorn princess." ???

I ain't touching that with a ten-foot clipboard.

pitabread said:

Don't know and in fact, I don't think it would ever be possible to have an explicit answer given the sheer variation of the different types of eyes and evolutionary pathways possible.

Click to expand...

thanks. so we dont know if evolution is possible.

DaisyDay said:

Btw, the movie "Batman Returns" with Danny DeVito as the Penguin had walking (and swimming!) robot penguins, but they did not have DNA afaik.

Click to expand...

a robot with DNA is a robot that was made from organic components and has DNA. so if you will find such a thing you will conclude design or not?

Jonathan Walkerin said:

I love when people say this. So uninformed and nobody has yet answered this simple question.

Since only thing separating micro-evolution form macro-evolution is time what prevents micro-evolution becoming macro evolution as time passes ?

Click to expand...

ic systems. if we need a part A and a part B to a specific function then it cant evolve stepwise.

xianghua said:

thanks. so we dont know if evolution is possible.

Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said in my post. We absolutely do know evolution is possible; it's an observable process.

You again appear to be arguing the position that unless we have 100% complete knowledge of something, then we can't know anything. That is simply not the case.

xianghua said:

a robot with DNA is a robot that was made from organic components and has DNA. so if you will find such a thing you will conclude design or not?

Click to expand...

Again, how are you defining "robot"? If, as before, you say that a robot is something that was "made", then it becomes a syllogism to ask if something "made" is "designed". The "DNA" part seems superfluous to the question IF by definition, the "robot" was "made" (why would the material it was "made" from affect the question of whether it was designed since "made" clearly implies a maker and, thus, begs the question?)

Also, I've asked each time how I could tell the difference between something that was "made" and something that was "not made" - so far, the only answer I've gotten was an example of something that was "not made" because it was non-existent. So again, how I could someone tell the difference between something that was "made" and something that was "not made"?

The Transcendentian said:

I have a hypothesis that God encoded an evolution boundary into the DNA of all living things.
in Genesis 1:11, 1:21, and 1:24, God says for each to reproduce after their kind.

In what you believe to be true about the universe the "only thing separating micro-evolution from macro-evolution is time".

I would very much like for there to be an advanced technology that would allow super-speeding up time (if a gravity well slows down time, then a gravity tower would speed it up) in a laboratory self contained ecosystem. In a set up like that, put some plants and animals and micro-organisms in, adjust the time reverse-dilator to about 10 billion, and watch the life evolve (or not).

Click to expand...

xianghua said:

ic systems. if we need a part A and a part B to a specific function then it cant evolve stepwise.

Click to expand...

Still making the baseless and ignorant claim that the co-evolution of related parts of a complex system is impossible? When are you going to give it up?

DaisyDay said:

Again, how are you defining "robot"? If, as before, you say that a robot is something that was "made", then it becomes a syllogism to ask if something "made" is "designed". The "DNA" part seems superfluous to the question IF by definition, the "robot" was "made" (why would the material it was "made" from affect the question of whether it was designed since "made" clearly implies a maker and, thus, begs the question?)

Click to expand...

ok. so if someone will create an artificial human it will be a robot by deinifition. right?

DaisyDay said:

Also, I've asked each time how I could tell the difference between something that was "made" and something that was "not made" - so far, the only answer I've gotten was an example of something that was "not made" because it was non-existent. So again, how I could someone tell the difference between something that was "made" and something that was "not made"?

Click to expand...

its true that we cant. but its irrelevant since there are some things that we know they are the resut of design. a robot is one of them.

xianghua said:

ok. so if someone will create an artificial human it will be a robot by deinifition. right?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily - it depends on how you are defining "robot". If you define "robot" to mean "an artificial human", then yes, an artificial human would be a robot by definition. That would, however, preclude your artificial penguin from being a robot.

its true that we cant.

Click to expand...

Is it true that we can't?

but its irrelevant since there are some things that we know they are the resut of design. a robot is one of them.

Click to expand...

How do we know that some things - which things? - are the result of design?

xianghua said:

ok. so if someone will create an artificial human it will be a robot by deinifition. right?

Click to expand...

They prefer the term "android". Calling them robots tends to upset them. Be kind.