My favorite argument for the existence of God

[doubtingmerle]

great. so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.

Again, "can be considered as" is not the same thing as "is identical in all aspects".

A dog's tail "can be considered as" a leg. That does not mean a dog's tail "is identical in all aspects" to a leg.

 

[pitabread]

So what? No one has ever made a robot which was a living creature as well, so your example is purely imaginary.

This is why I wouldn't even entertain such goofy scenarios to begin with. It just leads to an equivocation game.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so we dont have even one paper that could show us how the first eyespot evolved?

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.

Xianghua,

We have been over this time and time again. Penguins can evolve because they have babies that have DNA that can sometimes modify, and because there is natural selection. Watches or robots do not have babies, DNA or mutations. Instead the design is based on drawings. So the only way to change the watch or robot that is built to drawings is to change the drawings. Usually that involves human engineers, but not necessarily. It is possible, at least in theory, to use a computer that runs genetic algorithms and computerized simulations to design the next version of watch or robot. The problem with this is that the software to do this is enormously complex, but it can be done.

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

I would be satisfied with a paper which explains in detail how "design" is supposed to have produced the eye.

 

[Kylie]

it may be possible. so?

No, it most definitely IS possible.

This is how our eyes evolved.

 

[xianghua]

No you haven't. You've only asserted it repeatedly, but you've in no way demonstrated it.

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.

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.

and yet non of those papers could show us how the first light detection system can evolve.

 

[xianghua]

So what? No one has ever made a robot which was a living creature as well, so your example is purely imaginary.

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?

 

[xianghua]

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.

why? where is the limit that you will not consider it as a robot anymore?

 

[xianghua]

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.

no. it's not just one protein but several. as i point out: even a simple eyespot contain about 200 different proteins.

 

[xianghua]

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.

not. just the first step for the first light detector.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so according to this criteria a robot that can reproduce can evolve by a natural process.

 

[lesliedellow]

and yet non of those papers could show us how the first light detection system can evolve.

Post #343.

 

[lesliedellow]

why? where is the limit that you will not consider it as a robot anymore?

When it can self replicate.

 

[xianghua]

No, it most definitely IS possible.

This is how our eyes evolved.

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.

 

[xianghua]

When it can self replicate.

so a robot that can replicate itself isnt a robot anymore?

 

[lesliedellow]

so according to this criteria a robot that can reproduce can evolve by a natural process.

Since no system of reproduction is likely to be error free, one of the prerequisites for evolution would be present. Next you would need a population of such robots, and the presence of one or more limited resources, for which they would need to compete in order to reproduce.

 

[lesliedellow]

so a robot that can replicate itself isnt a robot anymore?

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

no. it's not just one protein but several. as i point out: even a simple eyespot contain about 200 different proteins.

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.