best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[xianghua]

hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

because we would have evidence of that manufacturing.

Lacking this evidence, how could one tell the difference?

 

[xianghua]

because we would have evidence of that manufacturing.

Lacking this evidence, how could one tell the difference?

so if you will find such a robot on a far planet, you will conclude design or evolution?

 

[archer75]

It's not exactly "evidence" for design in this imagined scenario because we would KNOW the "robot" had been designed.

Also, the 'robot' in this instance would obviously be made in imitation of something else (small organisms). That an imitation of something is "designed" doesn't mean the original was. If I make a replica of a boulder, that doesn't mean the original boulder was designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

If allowed to evolve into very different and varied robots through random changes and natural selection, at what point does the robot become a product of evolution instead of design?

If we were to compare your robot example to biology, then the initial replicating robot would have been a very simple single celled organism that is the universal common ancestor of all life on Earth. Due to evolution, we have all the variety we see today. At what point in the evolution of humans from that simple cell that first appeared billions of years ago are we the product of evolution instead of design?

 

[Loudmouth]

so if you will find such a robot on a far planet, you will conclude design or evolution?

It depends. Let's say we find the following:

1. The robots are evolving through random changes and natural selection.

2. There is a fossil record extending billions of years into the past, with the first robots in the fossil record being super simple robots that are not nearly as complex as modern robots.

3. Robots fall into a nested hierarchy, indicating that they have been evolving for billions of years.

At that point, I would call them evolved.

 

[Strathos]

All this argument says is that evolution is possible without abiogenesis.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All this argument says is that evolution is possible without abiogenesis.

And that's exactly what people post on these threads time and again. TOE has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

 

[PsychoSarah]

hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

Showing that it is possible to artificially create life would not be evidence that humans or any other life on this planet prior to this robot's creation were also created. Furthermore, evolution is an explanation of how life changes over time, not how life itself develops, so evolution could still apply to this reproducing robot; it would depend on how it reproduces.

 

[joshua 1 9]

hi. i have an interesting argument: let's say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of special robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

Yet another variation on William Paley's argument. Paley was born in 1743, Darwin was born in 1809. Darwin's theory of natural selection was an argument against Paley's Intelligent Designer & irreducible complexity.

Self replication is a product of nanotechnology.

 

[Jimmy D]

hi. i have an interesting argument: lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?

I applaud you for attempting a new approach instead of repeating the same tired arguments. I don't agree with your conclusions though.

 

[xianghua]

i think that the problem with the evolution of such a robot is that there is no step wise from a self replicaiting molecule into such a robot. for example: if we will need to add to the robot a motion system, it cant be done by adding one part each step. this is because we know that even a minimal motion system need at least several parts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so if you will find such a robot on a far planet, you will conclude design or evolution?

Again, how would you tell the difference?

If the "robot" was identifiable as a "robot"... meaning that it was build from unnatural materials like certain metal alloys, plastics, electrical circuits connecting silicon micro-chips, etc... then yes.
Consider this robot, for example:

If it looked exactly like biological organisms however, and if its DNA depicted a nested hierarchy that is completely tracable to a common ancestor of all life,.... Then how would you tell the difference?

I asked you that question before, but you failed to answer it. Care to try again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

for example: if we will need to add to the robot a motion system, it cant be done by adding one part each step

Why not?

this is because we know that even a minimal motion system need at least several parts.

Do we, really?
Or do you just assume this?

I sense a PRATT about "irreducible complexity" coming up.

 

[xianghua]

Why not?



Do we, really?
Or do you just assume this?

I sense a PRATT about "irreducible complexity" coming up.

if you have a tobot and you want to add it a motion system. how many parts do you will need then?

as for the robot itself: so if we will also found nested hierarchy on those kinds of robot you will conclude a natural process and not design?



we also find nested hierarchy in cars for example. but it doesnt prove any natural process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if you have a tobot and you want to add it a motion system. how many parts do you will need then?

In evolutionary context, any motion, no matter how small, is better then no motion.
In water, a single part could easily be used for motion.

as for the robot itself: so if we will also found nested hierarchy on those kinds of robot you will conclude a natural process and not design?

The problem starts with the name "robot". Robots are manufactured things by definition.

Secondly, as Loudmouth stated, if a single 'species' of robot is build in such a way that it self-replicates with random variation followed by natural selection as it competes with its peers for limited resources is "left loose" for a couple of billion years, it will end up in great diversity of species none of which will resemble the original very much (assuming this mechanical life didn't go extinct at some point off course).

At that point, why would it be wrong to say that this diversity was the product of the "mindless" process of evolution?

we also find nested hierarchy in cars for example

No, we don't. Not even within single productlines of a single model of a single brand of a single manufacturer.

No manufactured productline falls into a nested hierarchy. Not a single one.
And for good reason. It is inefficient and a waste of resources. An engineer would have to go out of his way to create a product line as a nested hierarchy. And he'ld more then likely get fired when doing so as well, for the reason of incompetence.

A process like evolution however, doesn't have the luxury to go back to the drawing board and take back a few steps to go another way, or to borrow from other innovations in other product lines. In evolution, one can only continue with whatever is already present. There is no "borrowing" of parts either.

 

[xianghua]

In evolutionary context, any motion, no matter how small, is better then no motion.
In water, a single part could easily be used for motion."

how you can made a motion system base on one part?



"No manufactured productline falls into a nested hierarchy. Not a single one."

can you give an example?

 

[Loudmouth]

i think that the problem with the evolution of such a robot is that there is no step wise from a self replicaiting molecule into such a robot

That isn't a problem if you start with a very simple robot that replicates.

if we will need to add to the robot a motion system, it cant be done by adding one part each step.

Why not?

this is because we know that even a minimal motion system need at least several parts.

A robot would already have several parts that are being used for other purposes that could be adapted for motion. Parts could also be duplicated so that one of the duplicates could serve the current function while the other duplicate could be adapted for motion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if you have a tobot and you want to add it a motion system. how many parts do you will need then?

No new ones if you modify the parts already there.

as for the robot itself: so if we will also found nested hierarchy on those kinds of robot you will conclude a natural process and not design?

I'd need more than that, but it's a start, I suppose.

we also find nested hierarchy in cars for example. but it doesnt prove any natural process.

People have said that on this site before, but none have actually been able to present the nested hierarchy in cars, because there actually isn't one. Not that it matters, seeing as they demonstrably can't reproduce, so the comparison would be pointless anyways.

 

[Loudmouth]

People have said that on this site before, but none have actually been able to present the nested hierarchy in cars, because there actually isn't one. Not that it matters, seeing as they demonstrably can't reproduce, so the comparison would be pointless anyways.

The lack of reproduction between cars is not a problem for the analogy. ID/creationists will contend that there were created kinds that share no common ancestor, so those are equivalent to separately created cars. The subsequent evolution of those created kinds would not be comparable to cars, but the distribution of characteristics in cars and the initial created kinds are directly comparable.