As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

so if someone will create an artificial penguin it will be a robot by definition?

Not necessarily. The definition of robots also include certain mechanical or electronic functionality usually designed to carry out a specific function or task.

If a person built a penguin from plastic and/or metal and included such functionality, then yes, you would call that a robot penguin.

But at no point would it make sense to refer to a biological penguin as a "robot". That is not what the word robot means in the English language.

 

[Tom 1]

im not sure that i understood your point. do you think that a self replicating robot (that is made from organic components) is evidence for design or not?

My point is that as there is plenty of evidence that living things do and have evolved, your robot analogy needs to take that into account somehow. If you want to prove that a penguin was designed and built in the same way that a robot would be, you would need to comprehensively disprove that it had evolved.

 

[xianghua]

My point is that as there is plenty of evidence that living things do and have evolved, your robot analogy needs to take that into account somehow. If you want to prove that a penguin was designed and built in the same way that a robot would be, you would need to comprehensively disprove that it had evolved.

so lets check it. but first remember: the burden of proof should be in the evolution side since a self replicating robot is best explain by design. so unless we can prove that evolution is true- design is by far the better scientific option. so lets start: can you prove that human is related to a banana? (according to evolution human and banana shared a common descent). if we cant prove it then we go back to our first notion- robot need design.

 

[pitabread]

the burden of proof should be in the evolution side since a self replicating robot is best explain by design.

There is no such thing as a self-replicating robot. Fantasy objects don't count. And if you're going to call living organisms "robots" then you're using the word incorrectly.

 

[Tom 1]

so lets check it. but first remember: the burden of proof should be in the evolution side since a self replicating robot is best explain by design. so unless we can prove that evolution is true- design is by far the better scientific option. so lets start: can you prove that human is related to a banana? (according to evolution human and banana shared a common descent). if we cant prove it then we go back to our first notion- robot need design.

I don't think you can get any resolution to this in forum posts. You'd need to have an indepth knowledge of ToE as a starting point, and work through it to see how you can then prove it to be false and replace it with some other idea you can prove to be more accurate.

 

[xianghua]

I don't think you can get any resolution to this in forum posts. You'd need to have an indepth knowledge of ToE as a starting point, and work through it to see how you can then prove it to be false and replace it with some other idea you can prove to be more accurate.

let me put it this way: have you ever seen a creature changing into a different creature? (say a dog evolving into something that isnt a dog). if the answer is no then we can be sure that evolution isnt a fact. and thus again we go back to our best conclusion- robot need design.

 

[pitabread]

let me put it this way: have you ever seen a creature changing into a different creature? (say a dog evolving into something that isnt a dog). if the answer is no then we can be sure that evolution isnt a fact. and thus again we go back to our best conclusion- robot need design.

This post exactly highlights what the other poster is talking about. Your entire argument is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution (mixed in with a bunch of personal incredulity).

Or to put it another way: your lack of understanding does not override the understanding of professional biologists.

 

[Yttrium]

let me put it this way: have you ever seen a creature changing into a different creature? (say a dog evolving into something that isnt a dog). if the answer is no then we can be sure that evolution isnt a fact.

It's actually the other way around. If we saw a dog evolving into something that isn't a dog in a short span of time, that would be a good sign that evolution isn't a fact. Because it wouldn't be evolution doing that, it would be something cool and dramatic.

Evolution takes a much, much longer time to gradually build up enough changes to produce a very different distant ancestor.

 

[Speedwell]

so lets check it. but first remember: the burden of proof should be in the evolution side since a self replicating robot is best explain by design. so unless we can prove that evolution is true- design is by far the better scientific option. so lets start: can you prove that human is related to a banana? (according to evolution human and banana shared a common descent). if we cant prove it then we go back to our first notion- robot need design.

"Design" is just the name of your explanation of the present diversity of life. Unless you can provide the explanation itself and not just the name, you have nothing to offer. You say that "design" is the best explanation, but you never tell us what the explanation is. When we say the theory of evolution is the best explanation, at least we have an explanation to go with the name, even if you don't think it's a good explanation. All you've got is a name with no explanation at all.

 

[Ophiolite]

When we say the theory of evolution is the best explanation, at least we have an explanation to go with the name, even if you don't think it's a good explanation. All you've got is a name with no explanation at all.

He does have robot penguins. You've got to admit they are charming. One can go a long way with charming!

 

[xianghua]

This post exactly highlights what the other poster is talking about. Your entire argument is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution (mixed in with a bunch of personal incredulity).

Or to put it another way: your lack of understanding does not override the understanding of professional biologists.

if you say so...

 

[VirOptimus]

if you say so...

Its the truth, you are incredibly ignorant regarding science, not even understanding the very basics.

 

[xianghua]

It's actually the other way around. If we saw a dog evolving into something that isn't a dog in a short span of time, that would be a good sign that evolution isn't a fact. Because it wouldn't be evolution doing that, it would be something cool and dramatic.

actually we seen something similar and evolutionists guys said that this prove that creationist are wrong. so in such a case evolutionists will claims that the fact that it happen prove evolution and not disprove it..

Evolution takes a much, much longer time to gradually build up enough changes to produce a very different distant ancestor.

lets test it. how much time we need to wait and see if evolution can happen or not? plus: see my signature link to understand why the burden of proof is on the evolution side.

 

[xianghua]

Its the truth, you are incredibly ignorant regarding science, not even understanding the very basics.

you are talking about yourself? because its seems so.

 

[VirOptimus]

you are talking about yourself? because it seems so.

Ohh, how clever!

 

[Yttrium]

actually we seen something similar and evolutionists guys said that this prove that creationist are wrong. so in such a case evolutionists will claims that the fact that it happen prove evolution and not disprove it..

What?

lets test it. how much time we need to wait and see if evolution can happen or not? plus: see my signature link to understand why the burden of proof is on the evolution side.

If you're talking about a creature changing into a very different creature, that could take many millions of years, depending on the situation.

Let me offer an oversimplified example. Let's say we have a critter called a cabbit. Let's label our starting species cabbit0. After many generations of mutation and selection, we get a new species, which we'll call cabbit1. Now cabbit1 still looks basically like a cabbit, but it can't breed with cabbit0. We don't have a very different creature by your standards.

But much later, we get another speciation from cabbit1, cabbit2. And the process continues.

Cabbit1 is a little different from cabbit0.

Cabbit2 is a little different from cabbit1, and somewhat different from cabbit0.

Cabbit3 is a little different from cabbit2, somewhat different from cabbit1, and quite different from cabbit0.

Cabbit4 is a little different from cabbit3, somewhat different from cabbit2, quite different from cabbit1, and very different from cabbit0.

Cabbit5 is a little different from cabbit4, somewhat different from cabbit3, quite different from cabbit2, very different from cabbit0, and, well, it's so different from cabbit0 that we really shouldn't call it a cabbit any more. Let's call it a Cabello. So now after millions of years and countless generations, we have something seriously different.

But if you look at it, we could rename the previous generations. Cabello could be cabello0, cabbit4 could be cabello1, cabbit3 could be cabello2, cabbit2 could be cabello3, cabbit1 could be cabello4, and cabbit0... isn't a cabello, so it's still cabbit0.

In other words, if you want more than simple macroevolution (speciation), you just have to wait (a lot) longer.

 

[xianghua]

What?



If you're talking about a creature changing into a very different creature, that could take many millions of years, depending on the situation.

Let me offer an oversimplified example. Let's say we have a critter called a cabbit. Let's label our starting species cabbit0. After many generations of mutation and selection, we get a new species, which we'll call cabbit1. Now cabbit1 still looks basically like a cabbit, but it can't breed with cabbit0. We don't have a very different creature by your standards.

But much later, we get another speciation from cabbit1, cabbit2. And the process continues.

Cabbit1 is a little different from cabbit0.

Cabbit2 is a little different from cabbit1, and somewhat different from cabbit0.

Cabbit3 is a little different from cabbit2, somewhat different from cabbit1, and quite different from cabbit0.

Cabbit4 is a little different from cabbit3, somewhat different from cabbit2, quite different from cabbit1, and very different from cabbit0.

Cabbit5 is a little different from cabbit4, somewhat different from cabbit3, quite different from cabbit2, very different from cabbit0, and, well, it's so different from cabbit0 that we really shouldn't call it a cabbit any more. Let's call it a Cabello. So now after millions of years and countless generations, we have something seriously different.

But if you look at it, we could rename the previous generations. Cabello could be cabello0, cabbit4 could be cabello1, cabbit3 could be cabello2, cabbit2 could be cabello3, cabbit1 could be cabello4, and cabbit0... isn't a cabello, so it's still cabbit0.

In other words, if you want more than simple macroevolution (speciation), you just have to wait (a lot) longer.

ok. so say that we wait and wait for about 100 million years and the cabit is still a cabbit. evolution will be refuted in such a case, or we can say that we may need to wait more years and see? in other words: where is the limit that you will agree that evolution cant happen?

 

[Ophiolite]

ok. so say that we wait and wait for about 100 million years and the cabit is still a cabbit. evolution will be refuted in such a case, or we can say that we may need to wait more years and see? in other words: where is the limit that you will agree that evolution cant happen?

No. If the organism is well adapted to its niche and the niche is consistent in its character there is no further drive for major phenotypic evolution, though minor genotypic evolution is likely.

 

[Yttrium]

ok. so say that we wait and wait for about 100 million years and the cabit is still a cabbit. evolution will be refuted in such a case, or we can say that we may need to wait more years and see? in other words: where is the limit that you will agree that evolution cant happen?

Minor changes are evolution. But you want major changes. It all depends on the pressures for change. If there are no pressures, and no real genetic drift, then 100 million years could go by with no major changes. If there's a lot of species-threatening selection going on, big changes could happen over 100 million years.

There is no consistent span of time involved. But we can see patterns in the fossil record that fit with the notion that certain species evolved into other species over very long periods of time. Since we know that some evolution ("microevolution") occurs, and we don't know of anything that would stop it, and we have those patterns in the fossil records, it seems no stretch to me that we have major changes in organisms over the course of history.

 

[pitabread]

if you say so...

Everyone says so and has been saying so for quite some time.

When you have a forum full of people telling you that you lack basic understanding of a subject, perhaps you really do lack a basic understanding of that subject.