The evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots.

[AV1611VET]

The robots have not ate the fruit yet they are being enslaved by their human masters. Why are they being punished?

They refuse to consider themselves Homo sapiens transistorii.

Do we need some robot jesus?

No --- they need Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races programmed into them.

 

[SkyWriting]

Given this, and given that the paper is on-line, why not re-read the section on "Predator-Prey Coevolution", and tell me how you manage to demonstrate your claim. You should be able to do so from that section, plus an understanding of how the robots were set up in the first place, which is described at the beginning of the paper.

We can see how when systems are put in place upfront, that the results show adaptive behavior that reacts to changing environmental conditions that helps sustain the organism in a variety of situations.

That's what Creationists have been saying from the start.
It's always fun to see it confirmed though. Do it again.

 

[Split Rock]

Congratulations?

Robots demonstrate what humans can't --- a designer.

No. These adaptations were not designed into these robots. They evolved. That is the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. These adaptations were not designed into these robots. They evolved. That is the point.

Then I'll believe in evolution when I see my calculator give birth to a toaster.

 

[Split Rock]

We can see how when systems are put in place upfront, that the results show adaptive behavior that reacts to changing environmental conditions that helps sustain the organism in a variety of situations.

These traits were not "put in place upfront." They evolved via random change and selection. The analogy to organisms should be obvious.

That's what Creationists have been saying from the start.
It's always fun to see it confirmed though. Do it again.

No, what creationists said from the start was that there can be no evolution at all. Even what they now call "microevolution." The argument went that if you allow for a small amount of change in a species, then that constituted a "slippery slope" to large scale changes. And in fact, the argument was correct in that sense. Creationists have been forced by the overwelming evidence, however, to abandon such claims. Now they talk about "macroevolution" and the creation of "new information," being impossible. Soon, they will have to move the goalposts again, and maybe one day... they will run out of room.

 

[pgp_protector]

Robots learning to hunt
robots being equipped to get energy off bio matter
Robots building other robots.

Anyone think this sounds like a bad Sci Fi Movie Plot?

 

[Split Rock]

Robots learning to hunt
robots being equipped to get energy off bio matter
Robots building other robots.

Anyone think this sounds like a bad Sci Fi Movie Plot?

Just wait until they start killing people with lasers while shouting "EXTERMINATE!!!"

 

[Split Rock]

Then I'll believe in evolution when I see my calculator give birth to a toaster.

I'll believe in creationism when I see a crocoduck walking down the road.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll believe in creationism when I see a crocoduck walking down the road.

I'll bet you would.

Since a duck's center of gravity shifts when he ambulates, and since his body shifts to compensate, technically a duck waddles.

And a crocodile, even though he too ambulates using plantigrade motion like a duck, moves parallel to the ground, not perpendicular; he technically crawls.

So don't expect to be seeing a crocoduck 'walking down the road' anytime soon.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'll believe in creationism when I see a crocoduck walking down the road.

All I could find

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9k9g_pbl68&feature=fvsr

 

[Split Rock]

I'll bet you would.

Since a duck's center of gravity shifts when he ambulates, and since his body shifts to compensate, technically a duck waddles.

And a crocodile, even though he too ambulates using plantigrade motion like a duck, moves parallel to the ground, not perpendicular; he technically crawls.

So don't expect to be seeing a crocoduck 'walking down the road' anytime soon.

Gee. This is hard, but I'll try again for you, AVET. I'll believe in Creationism when I see a crocoduck waddle/crawl down the street. Or a Unicorn gallop down the street. Or a feathered bat fly across the street. Or any of the other nonsense creatures you claim exist because of your fallible interpretation of The Bible.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

That's what Creationists have been saying from the start.
It's always fun to see it confirmed though. Do it again.

That's what Creationists have been borrowing from ToE, actually.

Creationists concede to all the sufficient conditions for (macro)evolution by natural selection, namely: the randomness of mutation and the determinism of natural selection to produce adaptation. What they have failed to do is provide evidence of a mechanism by which micro-evolution is limited to the point of preventing speciation or macro evolution. This would actually result in a fruitful prediction of the hypothesis of creation. Good luck.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or any of the other nonsense creatures you claim exist because of your fallible interpretation of The Bible.

Exist-ed --- there's why you think it's nonsense.

Given that you guys don't label these things until after you find them, not before (so you can put each other's names on them, no doubt [see Hesperopithecus haroldcookii]), I have no doubt that the first time one would be found, it would suddenly whiplash from "nonsense" to "science".

It's a fine line, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what Creationists have been borrowing from ToE, actually.

Creationists concede to all the sufficient conditions for (macro)evolution by natural selection, namely: the randomness of mutation and the determinism of natural selection to produce adaptation. What they have failed to do is provide evidence of a mechanism by which micro-evolution is limited to the point of preventing speciation or macro evolution. This would actually result in a fruitful prediction of the hypothesis of creation. Good luck.

Actually, I believe God is a God of boundaries; and I believe He sets boundaries that nature cannot cross, including a micro → macro boundary.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Actually, I believe God is a God of boundaries; and I believe He sets boundaries that nature cannot cross, including a micro → macro boundary.

This would be a meeting place of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. You'd expect we could find evidence of it or a mechanism that allows for it, if it indeed occurs. Tall order for creationists, but that's how you play science.

(I know you hate science, AV1611VET, but not all creationists claim to. Some even claim to play science with their creationist ideas.)

 

[AV1611VET]

This would be a meeting place of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

--- what? who? where?

You'd expect we could find evidence of it or a mechanism that allows for it, if it indeed occurs. Tall order for creationists, but that's how you play science.

No one plays science like I do ---

Like I said here: 138, I got my PhD in Physics from Boxtop University!

Um ... moving along ... why would you expect this to be a physical mechanism?

As I explained before, it's like trying to broad jump the Grand Canyon.

Some can jump farther than others, but they'll all end up at the bottom.

Evolution can "micro" just so far, then it loses its "oompf" and bottoms out.

I think some people say chimps are 96 or 98 percent human?

Well, that 2% can't be breached.

Just a theory.

(I know you hate science, AV1611VET, but not all creationists claim to.

In a way, I'm blessed.

I don't have to cater and kowtow to science in order to make a living.

God didn't call me to be a scientist.

(Some even claim to play science with their creationist ideas.)

Not I --- science and the creation don't mix; and I'll argue that, even to the point of alienating my brothers and sisters in Christ if I have to.

(Actually though, I'd stop long before that ever happened. )

 

[SkyWriting]

God didn't call me to be a scientist. Not I --- science and the creation don't mix; and I'll argue that, even to the point of alienating my brothers and sisters in Christ if I have to.

I think they do way more than mix.
I claim that belief in Special Creation was the foundation for science
and use this list as supporting evidence.

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)​

 

[Split Rock]

Exist-ed --- there's why you think it's nonsense.

Given that you guys don't label these things until after you find them, not before (so you can put each other's names on them, no doubt [see Hesperopithecus haroldcookii]), I have no doubt that the first time one would be found, it would suddenly whiplash from "nonsense" to "science".

It's a fine line, isn't it?

Where in The Bible does it say these creatures no longer exist? If it doesn't, then it is possible there are some still around... show one to me and I will become a creationist. Or just show me a fossil. That is all I ask.

 

[Split Rock]

science and the creation don't mix; and I'll argue that, even to the point of alienating my brothers and sisters in Christ if I have to.

How can this be when God invented science and blesses us with scientists??

 

[AV1611VET]

I think they do way more than mix.
I claim that belief in Special Creation was the foundation for science
and use this list as supporting evidence.

I use a bigger list: 615.

My point is, not one scientist culls science from Genesis 1 to do his work; and that's because Genesis 1 is not science, it is history.