best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Too bad they can't define kinds. I wonder why they don't try harder, it's not like species or genus are perfect categories of living things.

 

[Loudmouth]

Too bad they can't define kinds. I wonder why they don't try harder, it's not like species or genus are perfect categories of living things.

It's that tug-of-war between having as few kinds as possible so that they all fit on the Ark and having enough kinds so that humans and chimps aren't in the same kind.

If they say that two bird species are in the same kind, then all we need to do is look for the genetic differences between bird species in the same kind to determine the threshold for putting two species in the same kind. I can almost guarantee that we can find two bird species within one of their bird kinds that have more genetic differences between them than chimps and humans do. If memory serves, there are around 10,000 species of birds. If you set a 1% genetic difference between species as your limit for putting two bird species in the same kind, then you end up needing an entire Ark just for birds.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's that tug-of-war between having as few kinds as possible so that they all fit on the Ark and having enough kinds so that humans and chimps aren't in the same kind.

If they say that two bird species are in the same kind, then all we need to do is look for the genetic differences between bird species in the same kind to determine the threshold for putting two species in the same kind. I can almost guarantee that we can find two bird species within one of their bird kinds that have more genetic differences between them than chimps and humans do. If memory serves, there are around 10,000 species of birds. If you set a 1% genetic difference between species as your limit for putting two bird species in the same kind, then you end up needing an entire Ark just for birds.

-_- this really shouldn't be an issue. 8 humans and 2 non-human apes, there you go. Humans are in a separate category via divine judgement placing humans as separate in the bible, it's a title entirely separate from the "kinds classification", so humans and chimps can be in the same kind, it's their station that's different.

 

[Loudmouth]

-_- this really shouldn't be an issue. 8 humans and 2 non-human apes, there you go. Humans are in a separate category via divine judgement placing humans as separate in the bible, it's a title entirely separate from the "kinds classification", so humans and chimps can be in the same kind, it's their station that's different.

Kinds by fiat is always an option.

 

[USincognito]

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?

You're too late. Futurama did an episode on this five years ago.

 

[USincognito]

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

Actually we don't and we find myriad examples of violations. The early 80s VW Gold/Rabbit was also made into the Passat and Jetta sedan as well as the Caddy pickup.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

In water, a single part can easily be used to steer into a direction while using the currents of the water.

can you give an example?

Of violation of nested hierarchy in car designs of a single model from a single brand from the same manufacturer?

Sure.

Opel Zafira Tourer. It just got a new Navigation and media system. It doesn't have a precursor in previous Zafira lines. It came over from another line. That line being the Insigna.

This would be akin to a mammal suddenly getting feathers as they exist in birds.

Off course we have no reason to expect cars to fall into nested hierarchies, because cars don't reproduce with variation.

See, nested hierarchies aren't just an expectation of evolution theory. They are a prediction. Not to say, a requirement.

No nested hierarchy = no evolution.

But there is a nested hierarchy. So.... yeah...

 

[xianghua]

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.

this is the co-option model. i dont think its possible and here is why: lets take a spcific example: a moving car. lets say that we want to change a static car into a moving one (by adding wheels). we cant do that by a mix of other parts in the car, because there is not wheels to start with, and all the other parts that make the wheels spining.

 

[xianghua]

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.

here is one example: the majority of trucks have a mud cover (after the wheels), when cars usually doesnt have this trait.


and as for the definition of "kind". i think it can be two creatures that can interbreed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this is the co-option model. i dont think its possible and here is why: lets take a spcific example: a moving car. lets say that we want to change a static car into a moving one (by adding wheels). we cant do that by a mix of other parts in the car, because there is not wheels to start with, and all the other parts that make the wheels spining.

Maybe you should stick to biological examples, when discussing a subject of biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

here is one example: the majority of trucks have a mud cover (after the wheels), when cars usually doesnt have this trait.

The word "usually", indicates that some do. Which would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.

Also note that nested hierarchies apply to every single part of the object. The FULL design thereof. Not just the detail about which you think you can make some point.

A SINGLE part of cars being in violation of a nested pattern, dismantles the whole thing.

 

[xianghua]

Of violation of nested hierarchy in car designs of a single model from a single brand from the same manufacturer?

Sure.

Opel Zafira Tourer. It just got a new Navigation and media system. It doesn't have a precursor in previous Zafira lines. It came over from another line. That line being the Insigna.

i see. but the same can be said for evolution: see how many traits shared between a dolphin and a ichthyosaur wihout a commondescent (its mean no nensted hierarchy):

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

If, instead of 'robots', we think of genetically modified organisms and the aliens are very good at it and use the technology frequently, and we have a whole population of different organisms to look at, like rice with carrot genes, and tomatoes with fish genes, etc. etc. etc. When we tried to construct the family tree, we would find that they really just didn't fall into a nested hierarchy. Not just a few isolated horizontal gene transfers, but mix-and-match organisms as though a designer were using interchangeable parts to construct organisms along a plan. We would see that these organisms could not have evolved naturally, branching from common ancestors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i see. but the same can be said for evolution

No, it can not.
We don't observe such things in life.

We don't find mammals with feathers or reptiles with inner ear bones.

see how many traits shared between a dolphin and a ichthyosaur wihout a commondescent (its mean no nensted hierarchy):

Confusing function with the actual physical things again

 

[xianghua]

If, instead of 'robots', we think of genetically modified organisms and the aliens are very good at it and use the technology frequently, and we have a whole population of different organisms to look at, like rice with carrot genes, and tomatoes with fish genes, etc. etc. etc. When we tried to construct the family tree, we would find that they really just didn't fall into a nested hierarchy. Not just a few isolated horizontal gene transfers, but mix-and-match organisms as though a designer were using interchangeable parts to construct organisms along a plan. We would see that these organisms could not have evolved naturally, branching from common ancestors.

again: this is what we have found:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

in some case it may be up to half of the genome that contradict the suppose hierarchy:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"Intriguingly, by means of a novel four taxa analysis, we have partitioned the 2000 proteins responsible for this assignment into two groups. One group, containing about 40% of the proteins, supports the classical assemblage of the tunicate with vertebrates, while the remaining group places the tunicate outside of the chordate assemblage."

so its not just few genes here and there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually we don't and we find myriad examples of violations. The early 80s VW Gold/Rabbit was also made into the Passat and Jetta sedan as well as the Caddy pickup.

To add to the list, you can find the same tire on two different VW models, and different tires on two cars from the same model. You can find the same engine in a Toyota pickup and sedan, and yet find different engines in two cars from the same Toyota sedan model. Finding violations is rather easy when it comes to human designs.

 

[Loudmouth]

again: this is what we have found:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

From the very scientists that the article interviews:

"To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis."
INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis

Remember what I said before?

I have said time and again that we should see a nested hierarchy among species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer. Citing findings where there is a violation of a nested hierarchy where horizontal genetic transfer is common does nothing to change that.

in some case it may be up to half of the genome that contradict the suppose hierarchy:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"Intriguingly, by means of a novel four taxa analysis, we have partitioned the 2000 proteins responsible for this assignment into two groups. One group, containing about 40% of the proteins, supports the classical assemblage of the tunicate with vertebrates, while the remaining group places the tunicate outside of the chordate assemblage."

so its not few here and there.

That's a change at one node deep in the tree, hardly a massive violation. What you don't see is a tunicate with a mixture of genes from a wide variety of different species groups, as you would see with intelligent design.

 

[xianghua]

From the very scientists that the article interviews:

"To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. "-

its just a general classification that we can find also in human design: cars, trucks, airplanes ect.

" What you don't see is a tunicate with a mixture of genes from a wide variety of different species groups, as you would see with intelligent design."

again: here is such an example:

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

a lots of shared traits in a 2 different groups. evolution have no problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

its just a general classification that we can find also in human design: cars, trucks, airplanes ect.

We already showed that you can't find those things in human designs.

again: here is such an example:

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

a lots of shared traits in a 2 different groups. evolution have no problem.

Those aren't shared traits. Those are analogous traits.

 

[PsychoSarah]

here is one example: the majority of trucks have a mud cover (after the wheels), when cars usually doesnt have this trait.

-_- trucks are cars. This isn't an example of a nested hierarchy to begin with, because you aren't comparing a past form of a vehicle and a present form of one, you're just comparing two different cars. Furthermore, cars of completely different brands can have pretty much the same design, and car designs of the past can have little to nothing to do with modern ones, even if made by the same company.

and as for the definition of "kind". i think it can be two creatures that can interbreed.

Just interbreed? Not even produce fertile offspring? That makes for a lot of kinds, and also doesn't entirely eliminate chimpanzees and humans from being in the same kind.