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.
Again, "can be considered as" is not the same thing as "is identical in all aspects".great. so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.
So what? No one has ever made a robot which was a living creature as well, so your example is purely imaginary.
You've already been told - the simplest eyespot is just a patch of pigmented tissue (i.e. protein that absorbs light). If such a patch is on the cell surface or near enough to affect nearby cilia when illuminated, it will result in a phototropism. That's all it takes. There are plenty of biological proteins that can absorb light after relatively minor structural changes.so we dont have even one paper that could show us how the first eyespot evolved?
Xianghua,so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.
Ah, so you want a paper that lists every single mutation and every protein change and every phenotype in the evolution of the eye. Otherwise you will say eye evolution did not exist.but if it will not say how many amino acid we will need to change for the evolution of the first lgiht detector then the paper is actually meaningless.
I would be satisfied with a paper which explains in detail how "design" is supposed to have produced the eye.Ah, so you want a paper that lists every single mutation and every protein change and every phenotype in the evolution of the eye. Otherwise you will say eye evolution did not exist.
Ok, and I would like a paper that details the location, proteins, and function of every cell in your body. Otherwise, I will say you do not exist.
Deal?
No you haven't. You've only asserted it repeatedly, but you've in no way demonstrated it.
I originally linked to those papers as sampling of literature on eye evolution, since you originally claimed there was "no evidence" for such evolution. Your claim in this regard is obviously false as there is considerable literature and investigation into the topic backed up by studies into paleontological evidence as well as molecular evolution.
so let me ask you a question: you already agree that a man made creature can be consider as a robot. so do you agree that an object that is identical to a robot is a robot?So what? No one has ever made a robot which was a living creature as well, so your example is purely imaginary.
why? where is the limit that you will not consider it as a robot anymore?I never said that. You can make a robot out of wood if you want. That would still be a robot.
But a penguin is not a robot.
no. it's not just one protein but several. as i point out: even a simple eyespot contain about 200 different proteins.You've already been told - the simplest eyespot is just a patch of pigmented tissue (i.e. protein that absorbs light). If such a patch is on the cell surface or near enough to affect nearby cilia when illuminated, it will result in a phototropism. That's all it takes. There are plenty of biological proteins that can absorb light after relatively minor structural changes.
In thousands of generations of a population of millions, random mutations will produce pigment proteins in some. In a percentage of these the pigments will be on or near the cell surface.
not. just the first step for the first light detector.Ah, so you want a paper that lists every single mutation and every protein change and every phenotype in the evolution of the eye. Otherwise you will say eye evolution did not exist.
Xianghua,
So things evolve based on the way they reproduce. A penguin evolves by having babies with variations. A robot that is built from drawings "evolves" by having someone change the drawings. A robot that is built from computers running genetic algorithms "evolves" by running the genetic algorithm some more.
It is that simple: things evolve (change) using the method they reproduce.
Your whole point seems to be that since a watch cannot evolve by the method that penguins use to reproduce, then a penguin cannot evolve by that method either. That argument is totally bogus.
and yet non of those papers could show us how the first light detection system can evolve.
why? where is the limit that you will not consider it as a robot anymore?
it's funny because this video gave the same example i gave: the euglena eyespot that contain about 200 different proteins:No, it most definitely IS possible.
This is how our eyes evolved.
so according to this criteria a robot that can reproduce can evolve by a natural process.
so a robot that can replicate itself isnt a robot anymore?
You're describing a contemporary eyespot - the product of 3.4 billion years of evolutionary refinement. The earliest eyespots would have been simple pigmented areas; a single pigment would be sufficient.no. it's not just one protein but several. as i point out: even a simple eyespot contain about 200 different proteins.
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?