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.
If it could reproduce with heritable variation and some form of selection, it might evolve - but, by common usage, it wouldn't be a natural process, any more than evolutionary designs produced by computer are natural.so according to this criteria a robot that can reproduce can evolve by a natural process.
He can't stop. He MUST show that design is evidenced by functionality--or trick us into admitting it, anyway--or ID is revealed as empty rhetorical nonsense.If it could reproduce with heritable variation and some form of selection, it might evolve - but, by common usage, it wouldn't be a natural process, any more than evolutionary designs produced by computer are natural.
Please stop flogging this semantic dead horse and move on to something more interesting and/or challenging.
"ID is a bit like shooting an arrow, then drawing a target around it."
Simple. The first step for the first light detector was some mutation that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. As nobody was there, how do you expect us to know exactly which mutation that was?not. just the first step for the first light detector.
for now we have no evidence that the eye can evolve in small steps.
so for now, the claim that the eye can evolve is just a belief that contradict the data we have.
and yet non of those papers could show us how the first light detection system can evolve.
so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?It would be whatever you chose to call it, but the ability to self replicate would give it some claim to be considered a life form.
the problem is that it isnt just one mutation but many at once. so no, it's not possible undner the evolutionery model.Simple. The first step for the first light detector was some mutation that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. As nobody was there, how do you expect us to know exactly which mutation that was?
Sure we do. Just look at the literature.
I'm also not aware of any contradictions. What data do you think it's contradicting?
Have you actually read them all? Have you combed the scientific literature to see what else is out there? It doesn't sound like you've done any research.
but do you agree that anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally have the burden of proof?If it could reproduce with heritable variation and some form of selection, it might evolve - but, by common usage, it wouldn't be a natural process, any more than evolutionary designs produced by computer are natural.
Please stop flogging this semantic dead horse and move on to something more interesting and/or challenging.
so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?
you gave me several links and non of them can show us how the first light detector evolved. so no, you dont have any evidence that the eye could evolve stepwise.
the fact that we cant made a light detector stepwise. even by an intelligent designer such as human.
if so please show me even a single paper that show how the first light detector could evolved. only one. if evolution is such a strong theory you should be able to show me at least one.
In general, anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.but do you agree that anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally have the burden of proof?
Please define what you mean when you say "robot" and "evolve".so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?
Prove your assertion.the problem is that it isnt just one mutation but many at once. so no, it's not possible undner the evolutionery model.
Please define what you mean when you say "robot" and "evolve".
If by robot you mean an automatic mechanical device, and if by evolve you mean biological evolution, then no, a mechanical device, by definition, cannot undergo biological evolution.
it's funny because this video gave the same example i gave: the euglena eyespot that contain about 200 different proteins:
Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia
so this video basically support my claim.
My ophthamologist is a YEC.No it doesn't. We are talking about the evolution of the eye, and that video shows how it can be done AND it gives real world examples of each stage so you can't say it doesn't work.
This is called "begging the question". We don't "know" such a thing at all.my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:
a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.
My opthamologist is a YEC.
Last year I was legally blind.
Today I have 20/20 vision.
How'd that happen?
You had a cataract operation.
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?