"Evolving" Robots Challenge Evolution

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.

This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

Symmetric Chaos-

Macroevolution was first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko) in his work entitled, "Variabilitat und Variation." Filipchenko was an [size=5]evolutionist.[/size]

Macroevolution was first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.

This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

You sure do have a lot of faith in science. There were a great number of scientists who believe the Steady State theory, but it was wrong aslo.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is [b]no evidence that supports that alternatives. [/B]

👆

You sure do have a lot of faith in science. There were a great number of scientists who believe the Steady State theory, but it was wrong aslo

Originally posted by anaconda
a lot of people believe in the teaching and ways of this buddah too, is that trhoug faith or just because nothing else really sounded cool

I assume it's because something about Buddhism resonated with them. So it would be because nothing else sounded quite as "cool".

How does that apply here?

It seems others are doing a pretty good job of debunking whatever ridiculous ID claims surface. I won't touch on most of them, but will add one more.

The "Cambrian Explosion" happened simply due to the fact that prior to that period in history, animals did not have skeletal structures with enough density to survive into fossilization. So it seems like we suddenly have all sorts of new lifeforms during that period, but it is a misleading claim.

The Cambrian Explosion has been used for all sorts of purposes by people who wish to further their own agenda. Wonderful as it is to our fossil records, it has done just as much harm by those who misuse it.

I assume it's because something about Buddhism resonated with them. So it would be because nothing else sounded quite as "cool".How does that apply here?

DNA Wrapping and Replication

YouTube video

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

Originally posted by ushomefree
DNA Wrapping and Replication

YouTube video

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

bravo you find a high school science video. would you like a cookie?

I have a feeling ushome isn't talking about robots anymore, and is just using the thread as a thinly veiled excuse to post whatever material he wants....most of it, seemingly, erroneous interpretations of evolutionary science.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is [b]no evidence that supports that alternatives. [/B]

I'd like to post this again, because it's really a synopsis of the death knell for anything having to do with ID. I guess ushome didn't read the article I posted, which answers the question of genome information that he's been harping about for a couple pages. Or if he did, he's remained silent on it.

But SC's point, and the best one, is that ID has no evidence for itself. It's great at telling evolutionary theorists what they can't yet explain (which they usually can). But not so great at coming up with a new theory that is testable or even scientific. You can call it selective interpretation, you can call it the God of the Gaps theory, you can call it what you want. It's the same tripe that has slowly morphed from its creationist beginnings, and has been soundly defeated at every turn.

The Supreme Court ruling against the teaching of ID in schools as a scientific theory was voted on by a majority of conservative judges, who, if anything, would be supportive of ID. But the bid to give it equal footing with evolution failed miserably, due to an utter lack of evidence for their theory. Only in local school systems that are overrun and/or governed by religious extremists has the ruling been overturned.

...

...and at this point, like I stated before, this thread become nothing more than a soapbox for ushome's material. It should be merged with the evolution/creationism thread, or (better yet) just closed. It's not a new topic, just an old one dressed up (much like ID itself).

And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

Originally posted by ushomefree
And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

this is about robots evolving not genetics. stop trying to disprove evolution using the human genome. first of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic

Originally posted by anaconda
or the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes

just like that, no proof to back your claim

i have two first languages, english and urdu. even though urdu is my native tongue, i am better at english because it is an easier language.

chickenlover98-

I don't even want to know how you came up with your membership name, but I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98-

I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

In all honesty, outside of your short discussion with Shaky, you yourself have yet to make a single argument in the entirety of this thread.

Posting the opinions of others is not debate, it is, as Digi puts it, soapboxing.

If you want to convince someone of something you must provide support for an alternative. You have done no such thing so you cannot rationally expect to alter anyone's opinion which means you are interesting purely in causing conflict.

What do you mean? Provide an example?

sigh, a lot of people here are under the impression that micro evolution and macro evolution are the same. they are NOT, micro evolution deals with variations or mutation of ALLEALES not "GENES" {i.e. EYE COLOUR is a gene, however BLUE EYECOLOUR/BLACK EYE COLOUR/HAZEL EYE COLOUR, is an ALLEALE} . when mutation in alleales occur, a vairiation in the EXISTING characteristic is introduced{i.e. purple eye colour}, it still leads to the same species with the same genes. but when a GEANE mutates, a whole characteristic changes{i.e. eye changes to bio doppler radar}. the first happens enough to be observed, because changes in the bases{a c g t, if i remember corretcly} which basically make up all our dna, an happen at one place due to ionisation etc . and MAY create a new sequaence which creates a new protien for the given function{eye colou etc}. the PROBLEM with GENE mutation is that not only a number of bases have to change into sumthing compatible at the same time{very very very unlikely at random if not impossible} but also that unless the change happens in such a way that the start and stop codons {the genetic pointers which tell define and seperate sequences of bases into specific GENES for the mRNA which translates and forms the corresponding tRNA which forms the corrsponding protiens} remain wheere they are{very very unlikely} and ALSO are suitable for the newly introduced base sequences for the new gene{very very evry very evry unlikely as to the probability being almost null} , then the WHOLE frame of reference of the dna is thrown off for the mrna and hence it forms all sorts of random protiens

to elaborate it in a way that can be understoof, take the below sentence

i.am.a.boy.

now imagine that a reader can only understand the words which are seperated by the dots.

now THIS is what a mutation in an ALLEALE {lets define the GENE as the space where the sex of the character is written} looks like {microevolution}

i.am.a.girl.

however, this is what an IDEAL mutation in a GENE looks like

i.am.a.tree.

not only do the numbers of words have to be the same, but they have to form a coeherent meaning with the previous words

usually what happens in this

ia.ma.b.roker. {the frame of reference is thrown of my addition of a base or word and the start and stop codon remain the same i.e. the dots/fullstop }

or this

i.am.atree.. {the stop and start codon are mutated/changed}

now assume that the sentence is millions of alphabets long with even more dots in between them. once the WHOLE frame of reference is thrown uff, EVERYTHING in the cell gets screwed up. and it starts producing random protiens which usually end up killing the cell.

to top it off, it normally takes a combination of different kinds of genes to create changes in the phenotype{physical characteristics that you observe} so the new code has to work in ocnjunction with many other things {or EVERYTHING has to precisely change} to produce a compatible chnage which makes it even more unlikely.

it does not mean that ID is viable at all, but traditional evolution, taken at the basic level only works well for micro evolutution, not macro evolution.

leonheartmm-

Excellent post; I enjoyed the read! And thank you. I'd enjoy expressing our views regarding intelligent design in the future, but not tonight. I have been on this forum (off and on) for the past 5 to 6 hours (ha ha ha)!

By the way, can you recommend any good books and/or DVD movies covering evolution or intelligent design? Perhaps the Anthropic Principle? I can surely spend a moment surfing the web to find some, but I just thought I would ask. I have DVD movies that you may find interesting. Examples are, but not limited to:

(1) Journey towards Creation [www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=736&cat=0&bestseller],

(2) Unlocking the Mystery of Life [www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=386&cat=25&page=3],

(3) The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old Earth [www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=520&cat=25&page=3], and

(4) The Elegant Universe [www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=529&cat=25&page=3].

Take care.