best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[PsychoSarah]

true. but there are some levels of complexity of looking design. i guess we both agree that the chance of a nail evolving naturally may be high then the chance of a computer evolveing naturally.

Nah, their chances are equal, given we know both to be designed by our species. However, it is more plausible for nature to produce something that could be mistake for or even used like a nail than a computer. However, we can distinguish a "nature made" nail from ones we make by shape irregularities and metal purity. I'm shocked I am the one that has to bring up that, even in a completely designed universe, we would be able to distinguish by designer.

again: if they can interbreed- then they are in the same "kind".

Species A and Species B can breed, and do so frequently. Species B and Species C can breed, and do so frequently. However, Species A and Species C cannot breed. Is Species B the same "kind" as Species A, or Species C, which must be in different kinds because they cannot breed? This isn't even a hypothetical situation; it's actually super common, and part of the reason species distinctions aren't made solely on breeding compatibility.

there is more variations in the dog family:

NewStat | Dogs skulls show astounding variety in shape

but they are still dogs.

Ah, yes, and would you know that most dog breeds came into existence within the past 200 years? Evolution via artificial selection (aka, when we guide it) is far faster than via natural selection.

However, all dogs wouldn't be in the same "kind" anymore by your definition. After all, how would a Great Dane and a Chihuahua breed freely? A male Chihuahua wouldn't be able to reach, and a female would be crushed by the Great Dane.

The reason why dog breeds haven't diverged into different species is thanks to frequent cross breeding.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i dont need a closely related species. the non hierarchy can exist in any place between 3 different creatures. closely or not. its breaking the suppose hierarchy. for example: if we will find genes that are shared between bacteria and human but not reptiles- it will break the hierarchy.

That is not true: after all, some mutations are literally the removal of a gene.

 

[xianghua]

Is Species B the same "kind" as Species A, or Species C, which must be in different kinds because they cannot breed? This isn't even a hypothetical situation; it's actually super common, and part of the reason species distinctions aren't made solely on breeding compatibility.

they actually can interbreed by insemination. so technically they are the same kind. and the same is true for a Great Dane and a Chihuahua.

That is not true: after all, some mutations are literally the removal of a gene.

true. so there is no nested hierarchy in such a case. therefore the claim of a perfect nested hierarchy is false.

 

[PsychoSarah]

they actually can interbreed by insemination. so technically they are the same kind. and the same is true for a Great Dane and a Chihuahua.

If it is artificial, it isn't natural. You do understand that, once it gets to the point that we have to intervene to make two species breed, that they are, by definition, not the same species as each other, right? Furthermore, there are situations with my Species A, B, and C situation in which, even with human intervention, Species A and C cannot breed.

true. so there is no nested hierarchy in such a case. therefore the claim of a perfect nested hierarchy is false.

No, the hierarchy remains, why would you think gene deletions would prevent us from telling? They don't distance two species from each other any more than mutations that change the genes do. Heck, even if the only type of mutation was deletions (which, it is not), we'd still be able to show genetic links via the unchanged genes shared between species.

 

[Loudmouth]

i dont need a closely related species.

Yes, you do. Lineages that are distantly related suffer from gene loss.

 

[Loudmouth]

true. so there is no nested hierarchy in such a case. therefore the claim of a perfect nested hierarchy is false.

No one claimed a perfect nested hierarchy. We are claiming that there is a statistically significant nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, you do. Lineages that are distantly related suffer from gene loss.

but you said that a species with feathers and mammary glands will falsified evolution. so now you admit that even such a case will not falsified evolution because it possible to loss those traits.

 

[xianghua]

If it is artificial, it isn't natural.

its doesnt matter. if they can interbreed by insemination its means that they are in the same family.


" Furthermore, there are situations with my Species A, B, and C situation in which, even with human intervention, Species A and C cannot breed."-

maby it's just because they doesnt try more. even in regular situations not all species can interbreed in the first try.

No, the hierarchy remains, why would you think gene deletions would prevent us from telling?

because i can show you examples of shared genes that even scienstis could not find those genes remains in the closer species between them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

true. but there are some levels of complexity of looking design.

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

i guess we both agree that the chance of a nail evolving naturally may be high then the chance of a computer evolveing naturally.

Computers don't reproduce with variation, nore do they compete for limited resources, so why would they be subject to evolutionary processes?

again: if they can interbreed- then they are in the same "kind".

There's a proper word for that in taxonomy. It's "species".

there is more variations in the dog family:

NewStat | Dogs skulls show astounding variety in shape

but they are still dogs.

1. the big variation in dog breeds, is a human creation through artificial selection
2. in evolution, all descendends of a population will be classified as that population. Dogs don't turn into cats. They might become a sub-species of dog, but they will remain dogs. Just like dogs remain canines, mammals, tetrapods, eukaryotes etc.

Mammals produce more mammals.
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods.
Canines produce more canines.
Canines do not produce felines.

It is a process of every-more specialisation. A branching pattern.
Populations don't jump branches. They split in sub-branches.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but you said that a species with feathers and mammary glands will falsified evolution. so now you admit that even such a case will not falsified evolution because it possible to loss those traits.

No, that's not what he said at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

but you said that a species with feathers and mammary glands will falsified evolution.

So where is a species with mammary glands and feathers?

Why couldn't special creation produce such a creature?

so now you admit that even such a case will not falsified evolution because it possible to loss those traits.

I admit no such thing. Feathers and mammary glands evolved in separate lineages so gene loss could not produce a species with feathers and mammary glands.

 

[Loudmouth]

because i can show you examples of shared genes that even scienstis could not find those genes remains in the closer species between them.

All of the species in your example were distantly related.

 

[xianghua]

I admit no such thing. Feathers and mammary glands evolved in separate lineages so gene loss could not produce a species with feathers and mammary glands.

why not? we can claim that this trait get an ils effect (its mean that a part of the population had feathers and other part not during feathers evolution). and then the feathers trait get fixed in the population. we can also claim that several lineage just lost their feathers. simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

why not?

None of the ancestors of mammals had feathers genes to lose.

 

[xianghua]

None of the ancestors of mammals had feathers genes to lose.

so mammals dont have genes for feathers development for instance?

 

[Loudmouth]

so mammales dont have genes for feathers development for instance?

[No] mammals, nor their ancestors, had feathers.

 

[xianghua]

[No] mammals, nor their ancestors, had feathers.

so according to your prediction we should not find genes for feathers developmant in the mammals genome?

 

[Loudmouth]

so according to your prediction we should not find genes for feathers developmant in the mammals genome?

We don't find genes for feather development in mammals, which is supported by the fact that mammals don't develop feathers.

 

[Chinbits]

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 have evidence that humans evolved over time, instead of suddenly appearing. We also have plenty of evidence that humans share ancestry with other organisms, further giving evidence for humans evolving.

 

[xianghua]

We don't find genes for feather development in mammals, which is supported by the fact that mammals don't develop feathers.

surprise:

Feather Development Genes and Associated Regulatory Innovation Predate the Origin of Dinosauria | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

so again we can see why evolution cant be falsified.