The evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots.

[AV1611VET]

Where in The Bible does it say these creatures no longer exist?

It doesn't.

The Bible wasn't meant to be a list of animals that went extinct.

If it doesn't, then it is possible there are some still around...

I don't know; I doubt it.

Perhaps a cryptozoologist could verify it.

...show one to me and I will become a creationist.

I'm not going to doubt you, but if that's all it will take to make you claim you are a creationist, then maybe that mantra that says it takes more faith to be an evolutionist then it does a creationist doesn't apply to you.

You guys have a rich history of finding things you swore no longer existed, including whole empires; and an even longer history of one serendipity after another.

You guys even anticipate being found wrong in the future; yet you're all still evolutionists.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Someone else is at the helm, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

 

[Split Rock]

It doesn't.

The Bible wasn't meant to be a list of animals that went extinct.I don't know; I doubt it.

Nor was the Bible meant to be a list of "created kinds," yet you and most "Creation Scientists" sure do treat it like it was.

Perhaps a cryptozoologist could verify it.I'm not going to doubt you, but if that's all it will take to make you claim you are a creationist, then maybe that mantra that says it takes more faith to be an evolutionist then it does a creationist doesn't apply to you.

Maybe the mantra that it takes "more faith to be an evolutionist then it does a creationist" doesn't apply to anyone.

You guys have a rich history of finding things you swore no longer existed, including whole empires; and an even longer history of one serendipity after another.

What did we find that science said could not exist? Anytime that did happen, it resulted in an overturning of basic theories.

You guys even anticipate being found wrong in the future; yet you're all still evolutionists.

I do not anticipate that the basic theory of evolution will ever be overturned... maybe it will, but I doubt it. Will it need to be modified (as in the past), most likely, yes. That is how we learn, and why creationists never learn anything (that they apply creationism to).

 

[Split Rock]

Someone else is at the helm, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

Could it be....... SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not anticipate that the basic theory of evolution will ever be overturned... maybe it will, but I doubt it.

There's that "faith which was once delivered unto the scients" showing.

I knew you would muster enough to hold on.

 

[pgp_protector]

Could it be....... SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????

Ya forgot the image

 

[Split Rock]

There's that "faith which was once delivered unto the scients" showing.

I knew you would muster enough to hold on.

I said it was possible, but I doubted it would happen. That is not Faith. Faith is when you are certain you cannot be wrong. You know.... like Creationism.

You guys love pretending that you don't know what Faith really is. Pathetic.

 

[dad]

The robots have not ate the fruit yet they are being enslaved by their human masters. Why are they being punished? Do we need some robot jesus?

Maybe we made em that way..?

 

[dad]

No, I am not having any problems.

My question is legitimate. If you have little to no idea as to what darwinian evolution is, then it completely changes the manner in which I reply to you.

So are you going to address my question, or do I assume you have an idea, and point you to the relevant parts of the paper, and suggest that you read them first then reply to me second.

Here is a quote from your paper..
"The general idea of evolutionary robotics (Figure 1 and Video S1) is to create a population with different genomes, each defining parameters of the control system of a robot or of its morphology. The genome is a sequence of characters whose translation into a phenotype can assume various degrees of biological realism [20]. "


So man created....like God, to some weak, pitiful, little degree, his creatures apparently have the abilty to adapt...? So?

Not my question.

My question was whether you understood the mechanics behind darwinian evolution.


Regards, Roland

Can you simply explain the difference between evolving, per say, and the Darwinian evolution? Spit it out, man, if you understand the thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you simply explain the difference between evolving, per say, and the Darwinian evolution? Spit it out, man, if you understand the thing.

Here's a secret I bet they didn't think about, bro:

Spoiler: TOP SECRET

The robots would be creationists.

 

[Promethean]

Could it be....... SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????

At least the Church lady was funny and showed some signs of intelligence

 

[rjw]

Here is a quote from your paper..
"The general idea of evolutionary robotics (Figure 1 and Video S1) is to create a population with different genomes, each defining parameters of the control system of a robot or of its morphology. The genome is a sequence of characters whose translation into a phenotype can assume various degrees of biological realism [20]. "


So man created....like God, to some weak, pitiful, little degree, his creatures apparently have the abilty to adapt...? So?

One could write "So man created ... like God, ... that apparently have the ability to do what God did/does" for any scientifc/engineering achievement.

Therefore, do you write/ask "So?" to every scientific discovery or engineering achievement you come across?

Can you simply explain the difference between evolving, per say, and the Darwinian evolution? Spit it out, man, if you understand the thing.

You are simply trolling for God when you do this, aren't you Dad. Is your god a troll? You have just finished telling me about man doing that which God does.

There is little point in telling me to "spit it out, if understand the thing" when it is still clear that you have not read the paper and you continue to give me no idea as to just how much you understand of the mechanism behind darwinian evolution (as distinct from other forms of evolution.).

So, are you going to actually address those questions I asked, and read the paper?

Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

Clearly there must be, if you are representing him.




Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

One could write "So man created ... like God, ... that apparently have the ability to do what God did/does" for any scientifc/engineering achievement.

Therefore, do you write/ask "So?" to every scientific discovery or engineering achievement you come across?




You are simply trolling for God when you do this, aren't you Dad. Is your god a troll? You have just finished telling me about man doing that which God does.

There is little point in telling me to "spit it out, if understand the thing" when it is still clear that you have not read the paper and you continue to give me no idea as to just how much you understand of the mechanism behind darwinian evolution (as distinct from other forms of evolution.).

So, are you going to actually address those questions I asked, and read the paper?



Clearly there must be, if you are representing him.




Regards, Roland

Since you are unable, or unwilling to spell out exactly what aspect of Darwin's ideas on the created trait of evolution, you imagine are relevant, I guess I have to spoon feed you here?

" natural selection, a process whereby helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) become more common in a population while harmful traits become increasingly rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, resulting in more individuals of the next generation inheriting those traits.[2][3] Adaptations occur over many generations through successive, small, random changes in traits combined with natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment." wiki

Now, things are known to evolve that way, however, if the hyper evolution abilities of created animals in the past, did not require any great time, that changes everything! All extrapolations are based on...class?...the present...very good. For that to have any meaning we need tpo impose this state on the past. No can do. Therefore, any mickey mouse little changes over the time science has existed amount to diddly squat! So, any little two bit changes or 'adaptations' man's silly robot's may go through mean nothing at all in the creation debate! Forget the imaginary pond billions of imaginary years ago...just imagine these robots in a pond even 4000 years ago! Today, all we would have, if anything, is a little lump of rust!
The ONLY place slow changes over great time have any meaning, is WITHIN the fantasy bubble past that same state so called science fabricated!

Any more questions?

 

[dad]

Here's a secret I bet they didn't think about, bro:

Spoiler: TOP SECRET

The robots would be creationists.

Well, it almost seems that way. It is hard to help someone, unless they know what they are talking about..

By the way, you mentioned the primordial mix fable the other day. I notice today it was overturned!

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm


Evos, hang your head..

 

[rjw]

Since you are unable, or unwilling to spell out exactly what aspect of Darwin's ideas on the created trait of evolution, you imagine are relevant, I guess I have to spoon feed you here?

" natural selection, a process whereby helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) become more common in a population while harmful traits become increasingly rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, resulting in more individuals of the next generation inheriting those traits.[2][3] Adaptations occur over many generations through successive, small, random changes in traits combined with natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment." wiki

Now, things are known to evolve that way, however, if the hyper evolution abilities of created animals in the past, did not require any great time, that changes everything! All extrapolations are based on...class?...the present...very good.

Given that animals were created in the past, then why did they need hyper evolution? How do you know they had hyper evolution?

But the above is all beside the point. Let me ask you again:-

One could write "So man created ... like God, ... that apparently have the ability to do what God did/does" for any scientifc/engineering achievement.

Therefore, do you write/ask "So?" to every scientific discovery or engineering achievement you come across?

The ONLY place slow changes over great time have any meaning, is WITHIN the fantasy bubble past that same state so called science fabricated!

So you assert.

Of course just like the rest of us, fallible Dad could be wrong.

Any more questions?

Yes.

Did you actually read that paper?

Did you actually understand the mechanism behind darwinian evolution before you Googled?

One could write "So man created ... like God, ... that apparently have the ability to do what God did/does" for any scientifc/engineering achievement.

Therefore, do you write/ask "So?" to every scientific discovery or engineering achievement you come across?




Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Evos, hang your head..

Why?


Hydrothermal vents have been another option several scientists had been exploring re the origin of life for a number of years! I remember reading research papers on this a decade or so ago.

In fact, since you have just shown me that you know how to Google, do this for "origin of life at hydrothermal vents". See all the hits you get. Do you always treat news reports as gospel and then use them to tell others to hang their head in shame?



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Why?


Hydrothermal vents have been another option several scientists had been exploring re the origin of life for a number of years! I remember reading research papers on this a decade or so ago.

In fact, since you have just shown me that you know how to Google, do this for "origin of life at hydrothermal vents". See all the hits you get. Do you always treat news reports as gospel and then use them to tell others to hang their head in shame?



Regards, Roland

One doesn't expect all fables to wither at once. Of course there will always be something for those of the faith that opposes and exalts itself against God, and all that is called holy. That wasn't an issue. It was simply noting that an 80 year old fable, taught as science has bit the dust. One small step, that was not supposed to be a comprehensive across the board total victory. Just a good blow to the teeth of evolution stories.

 

[dad]

Given that animals were created in the past, then why did they need hyper evolution? How do you know they had hyper evolution?

Because we know the time frame that creation, and the flood occurred, to some degree, and there was no time for any other sort. The evidence indicates a lot of adapting went on, the fossil record. There is no way on God's earth that all the various millions of kinds of species and etc that we have today were on the ark. Right? So, either it was a lie, or the state of life and the world at the time was far different, and rapid changes were the order of the day. Since science has nothing to say about it, why would anyone assume otherwise?? I am not one to lightly call the Almighty a liar..

But the above is all beside the point. Let me ask you again:-

One could write "So man created ... like God, ... that apparently have the ability to do what God did/does" for any scientifc/engineering achievement.

Therefore, do you write/ask "So?" to every scientific discovery or engineering achievement you come across?

No, most are so insignificant to the issues of faith, that I don't give much of a hoot about them. However, when they claim to speak to man about how we got here, and enter the creation debate, they better eat their wheaties, and be in shape first!

So you assert.

Of course just like the rest of us, fallible Dad could be wrong.

Yes.

But God and His word are not fallible dad. Check.

Did you actually read that paper?

Did you actually understand the mechanism behind darwinian evolution before you Googled?

You can't seem to tell us. Why the secret? Let's face it, Darwinism is fantasy from the getgo. Where it might happen to somewhat allign with things going on in the present, the causes, and basis for it the poor dead soul has terribly wrong. Darwin was fallible.

To take godless ideas extrapolated from slow present adaptations, mutations, behaviors, and etc, into the time of creation, one requires a same state. Too bad one can't have one.

 

[rjw]

One doesn't expect all fables to wither at once. Of course there will always be something for those of the faith that opposes and exalts itself against God, and all that is called holy. That wasn't an issue. It was simply noting that an 80 year old fable, taught as science has bit the dust. One small step, that was not supposed to be a comprehensive across the board total victory. Just a good blow to the teeth of evolution stories.

No.

That 'fable' has not hit the dust either.

They still don't have a good model for the natural origin of life - so many cards are still on the table. And the vent model is one that has been on the table for a couple of decades.

Are you now trying to suggest that having several competing models in science, is something that does not or should not happen?

You realize that the article you quoted was probably from an essay (the journal is titled "BioEssays")? That is, it was a person expressing a view point and not necessarily announcing the results of any new research (they claim to provide "a new perspective")?


Once more, little point in telling me about people going against God when the best you can do is argue from ignorance and troll, is there?




Regards, Roland

 

[Split Rock]

Hey dad, I see you have returned to the forum with your twisted brand of humor (ie "Dadology"). How ya been?

By the way, you mentioned the primordial mix fable the other day. I notice today it was overturned!

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life


Evos, hang your head..

Hang our head over what? There are a number of hypothesis regarding abiogenesis, and none have been shown more likely than any other (despite a sensationalistic news article). Show us real evidence that life came from a magic garden, with magic trees bearing magic fruit that grant knowledge or immortality by its consumption. Then we will "hang our heads."

So, now that Haplocheirus sollers has been discovered, an avianlike dinosaur with feathers that predates archeopteryx, I guess we should tell you creationists to "hang your head." Right, dad?