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.
I would love to see evidence for the design please?i gave evidences for the claim that those ervs arent the product of viral infections. so its indeed support the claim that those ervs are an integral part of the genome. if you want evidence for design i can give you some.
you can start with this one:I would love to see evidence for the design please?
A robot that can replicate itself has no bearing on the evolution of organic life, as its functions would be, inevitably, different from organic life.
If it has no distinction from the life processes of normal organic life, then it would be an artificial organism, not a robot.i actually do refer to an organic robot.
-_- we aren't machines. Or programmable. We lack a certain level of purpose and consistency seen in machines. Even a machine designed to imitate life would only be that, and have no significant potential to become more than that or deviate from its programming in any productive way.why actually? where is the limit between a robot and an organism?
-_- we aren't machines. Or programmable. We lack a certain level of purpose and consistency seen in machines.
-_- it is both things. However, no matter how hard you tried, it wouldn't be very good at being a watch.but what is that feature that will make them so different? i dont think there is such one. for example: lets say that i will made a watch that made from organic components and have a self replicating system. do you agree that we can call it a watch, or you will call it an organism?
First 'rule' of evolution suggests that life is destined to become more complex
The only rule is a permanent departure from the original type.
Looking back through the last 550 million years of the fossil catalogue to the present day, the team investigated the different evolutionary branches of the crustacean family tree.
It would make for a very poor watch, given that gears and other spinning components are not something a living, organic organism can sustain.so a watch that made from organic components and have a self replication system isnt a watch but an organism?
It would make for a very poor watch, given that gears and other spinning components are not something a living, organic organism can sustain.
-_- the issue was the 360 degree rotation, not gear shape. That insect does not have anything in its body that rotates 360 degreesfirst; we have found gears in nature too:
This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg
and secondly: the question is if it will be a watch or not. i do think it will be a watch.
So you want the watch to be microscopic? Also, the issue lies in multicellular organisms having tissues which rotate 360 degrees, not individual cells. My apologies for not making the distinction, since I assumed your watch would be the size of an actual watch. So, multicellular organisms cannot have groups of cells rotate 360 degrees because they'd be unable to stay attached to the surrounding cell matter to the extent needed to promote the movement. Also, of course ATP synthase can rotate 360 degrees, its not even an organelle.an atp synthase and flagellum can makes a 360 degree rotation:
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?