My favorite argument for the existence of God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"ID is a bit like shooting an arrow, then drawing a target around it."

Nice one........

Deu 32:42 I will make My arrows drunk with blood, And My sword shall devour flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives, From the heads of the leaders of the enemy.” '

Persians: "Our arrows will blot out the sun!"
Spartans: "Then we will fight in the shade"

......................

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

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?

 

[pitabread]

for now we have no evidence that the eye can evolve in small steps.

Sure we do. Just look at the literature. The only way for you to keep claiming that there is "no evidence" is to be willfully ignorant. Do you want to be willfully ignorant?

so for now, the claim that the eye can evolve is just a belief that contradict the data we have.

It's hardly "just a belief" given that it's based on an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and available data. I'm also not aware of any contradictions. What data do you think it's contradicting?

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

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.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?

 

[xianghua]

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?

the problem is that it isnt just one mutation but many at once. so no, it's not possible undner the evolutionery model.

 

[xianghua]

Sure we do. Just look at the literature.

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.

I'm also not aware of any contradictions. What data do you think it's contradicting?

the fact that we cant made a light detector stepwise. even by an intelligent designer such as human.

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.

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.

 

[xianghua]

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.

but do you agree that anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally have the burden of proof?

 

[lesliedellow]

so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?

See post #358

 

[pitabread]

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.

As I already said, a couple of the papers I linked touch on the evolution of photoreceptors and also include umpteen references to other papers. Heck, one of the papers I cited to you in the past dealt directly with the evolution of light sensitive proteins.

The fact that you are trying to spin this as if there isn't any evidence for eye evolution is just disingenuous at best if not outright dishonest.

the fact that we cant made a light detector stepwise. even by an intelligent designer such as human.

That's not "data". This is just an unsupported assertion. You have no contradictory data with respect to eye evolution.

As I said, if you want to disprove that the eye could evolve you need to demonstrate real physical barriers preventing its evolution. All you do is repeat yourself. Repeating the same tired assertions gets you no closer to actually demonstrating your point. It just shows that you don't have any support for your claims.

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.

Sorry, but I'm not doing your homework for you. I've already given you plenty of material on everything from the evolution of photosensitive proteins to more elaborate eye structures. Most of which you appear to ignore or otherwise respond to with little more than hand-waving dismissals. If you want to learn more about eye evolution you can do your own research from there.

Good luck.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but do you agree that anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally have the burden of proof?

In general, anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.

I also think you're confusing semantics with ontology - it's likely that in common usage, the semantics of 'robot' don't involve natural evolution, i.e. things that evolve naturally are not robots. You can define and use words however you like, but they won't necessarily have meaning to others. I suggest you read Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations', where he spends some time on this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you basically believe that it's possible to such a robot to evolve?

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.

If you define robot to mean "anything that moves", then yes, some moving things can undergo biological evolution.

If you define evolution to mean "design change", then yes, most moving things (including mechanical devices) can have a design change.

So until you define what you mean by robot and evolve, I cannot answer your question. Your whole argument seems to be based on letting definitions float all over the place. Stop it. Give us the definition of "robot" and "evolve" as you use the words.

 

[doubtingmerle]

the problem is that it isnt just one mutation but many at once. so no, it's not possible undner the evolutionery model.

Prove your assertion.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

When he was arguing with me, I think we had reached the point where a robot could self replicate, and, in doing so, have some kind of inheritable mutations. With a population of robots, selection pressures could then lead to evolution.

The chances of such a robot ever being constructed are, I should think, pretty remote.

 

[Kylie]

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

My ophthamologist is a YEC.

Last year I was legally blind.

Today I have 20/20 vision.

How'd that happen?

 

[Jenny_8675309]

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.

This is called "begging the question". We don't "know" such a thing at all.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

You had a cataract operation.

I was leaving from my appointment yesterday, and I told him I debate evolutionists who tell me I'm a hypocrite for coming here, and he laughed and said they accept evolution by faith, just as we accept creation by faith.