Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is a robot made from organic components different from a living organism?
Further, how does the "robot" self-replicate? Does it just magic copies of itself into being? Or does it rearrange already present matter?It's designed?
I believe that the hypothetical situation being presented is that it reproduces itself with heritable random variation subject to natural selection.Further, how does the "robot" self-replicate? Does it just magic copies of itself into being? Or does it rearrange already present matter?
So, isn't that what we observe with actual populations of organisms over time? Why re-skin them as "robots"?I believe that the hypothetical situation being presented is that it reproduces itself with heritable random variation subject to natural selection.
To find out what ID proponents mean by "design." If I design a self-replicating creature whose descendants evolve and speciate, are those descendants thus "designed" too, or not?So, isn't that what we observe with actual populations of organisms over time? Why re-skin them as "robots"?
How is a robot made from organic components different from a living organism?
I just wanted to understand the question. There is talk about a "self-replicating robot" made from "organic components" and I wanted to know in what way this was different from, say, a mouse.so such a robot dont need a design then?
That's the question we are directing towards ID proponents. The reason for calling such a construct a "robot" was to provide an hypothetical creature for a thought experiment which was unequivocally designed by an intelligence--human intelligence in this case.I just wanted to understand the question. There is talk about a "self-replicating robot" made from "organic components" and I wanted to know in what way this was different from, say, a mouse.
I just wanted to understand the question. There is talk about a "self-replicating robot" made from "organic components" and I wanted to know in what way this was different from, say, a mouse.
The next question is, would the evolved and speciated descendants of such a creature also be considered designed?
Design is intention, telos. What if it was the intention of the designer that the creature's descendants should evolve by random variation and selection without specifying the forms they would assume? Electronic circuits are nowadays produced by computers using random variation and selection algorithms. Would you consider those circuits to be designed?no. because they evolved by a natural process. unless the designer already desinged those new shapes to evolve in the first place.
Design is intention, telos. What if it was the intention of the designer that the creature's descendants should evolve by random variation and selection without specifying the forms they would assume? Electronic circuits are nowadays produced by computers using random variation and selection algorithms. Would you consider those circuits to be designed?
It's not so much what it means for biological evolution, but what it means for Intelligent Design. The idea that divine telos can be transmitted to descendant creatures produced by random variation and selection cuts ID off at the knees.Yes, those circuits are the result of intentional design. So what does that mean for biological evolution?
Yes, those circuits are the result of intentional design. So what does that mean for biological evolution?
No, I disagree. If I design a robot with the intention that it replicate and evolve, then the replicated and evolved offspring are also "products" of my intention; they are designed.It changes nothing at all.
It still works the way it always has. A "blind" process of survive, reproduce, mutate, repeat.
If you wish to call the results of such a process "intentional design", go righ ahead. But it's meaningless and useless to do so.
No, I disagree. If I design a robot with the intention that it replicate and evolve, then the replicated and evolved offspring are also "products" of my intention; they are designed.
Let us consider two scenarios:
One, that God created the first life form with the intention that it replicate and evolve.
Two, that the first life form arose by natural causes with the property of being able to replicate and evolve.
Downstream in time, looking at the evolved offspring, there would be no way to tell the difference.
This puts ID proponents in a bind, because they are politically motivated to demonstrate the existence of a designer by examining the evolved offspring.
Debatable; unless you directly controlled what the evolutionary paths were, those products would not be your design, but shaped via physics and other properties of the environment. Basically, it's like how "puffed" chips like Cheetos were invented: by complete accident and a malfunctioning machine made to produce regular, flat chips.No, I disagree. If I design a robot with the intention that it replicate and evolve, then the replicated and evolved offspring are also "products" of my intention; they are designed.
Ever heard of designer marks? I can tell if a hole was dug with a shovel, by hand, or caved in all on its own. Basically, the only way for life to be designed and not appear designed is for the designer to go through great lengths to make it seem natural, and even then, we would still likely be able to see some trademarks of design. What is lacking in doing so, however, is motivation. There are no reasons aside from extremely petty ones to make designed life appear as natural as possible. In fact, the least petty reason I can think of is for the purpose of an experiment in biology. Even that would just push the origin of life back a bit, on a different planet or other celestial body.Let us consider two scenarios:
One, that God created the first life form with the intention that it replicate and evolve.
Two, that the first life form arose by natural causes with the property of being able to replicate and evolve.
Downstream in time, looking at the evolved offspring, there would be no way to tell the difference.
Meh, yes and no. Most ID proponents argue that you actually CAN see evidence for design in nature. Their arguments that I have heard are not particularly good, but it is worth noting that they fundamentally disagree with you.This puts ID proponents in a bind, because they are politically motivated to demonstrate the existence of a designer by examining the evolved offspring.
An admission??? Is that the best I get??? I have been struggling to make that point as clearly as I can for months, and the the best you can say about my efforts is that it is an "admission?"To be even more blunt, stating that there is no means of distinguishing designed and non-designed life is just an admission on your part that no conclusive evidence could possibly be found that distinguishes life on this planet as designed... which means that, logically, the null hypothesis that life on this planet was not designed will remain the BEST scientific answer we can ever get.
Well, I thought I had been vociferous about disagreeing with them about it.Meh, yes and no. Most ID proponents argue that you actually CAN see evidence for design in nature. Their arguments that I have heard are not particularly good, but it is worth noting that they fundamentally disagree with you.
You are pretty much saying "there's no way to tell if life is designed or not", and in such a situation, the null hypothesis always wins.An admission??? Is that the best I get??? I have been struggling to make that point as clearly as I can for months, and the the best you can say about my efforts is that it is an "admission?"
-_- you've done nothing to me. I'm not sure why you take this so personally. I see flaws in arguments and positions, and I mention them, regardless as to "what side" it might come from.Well, I thought I had been vociferous about disagreeing with them about it.
What did I ever do to you, anyway? I am well and truly crushed by your post.
I was being ironic. I thought I had done a better job of making clear my position on ID.-_- you've done nothing to me. I'm not sure why you take this so personally.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?