by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Do you REALLY not understand that distinction? Well go take some real collegiate level biology courses and then get back to me in a year or two...
Come now mkr. You tell me the difference between organic and inorganic molecules. Do you think organic molecules are alive, in any sense at all? Do you have scientific proof that it is impossible for life to exist which is not composed of what we nominate as 'organic' molecules?
I would say that a hypothetical discovery of nanotech on the moon would be evidence of alien life
Even though it can be explained in evolutionary terms just like life on Earth?
If the hypothetical nanobots could be distinguished as being artificial (i.e. miniature robots, which you seem to imply) then yes although you would still have to find evidence that they weren't developed on earth, as I stated if they were organic then you would still have to assume they were artificial since the moon has no liquid water or atmosphere. If you wanted to ask the same question with the moon replaced with an earth-like planet in another solar system then you would assume that anything organic found was there as the result of evolutionary processes.
Unfortunately that is where the analogy ends because there is an important distinction between what is natural and what is artificial.
Nope, there is an arbitrary distinction between what is natural and what is artificial, a circular definition that says life is non-artificial and only the non-artificial can live.
There is nothing arbitrary regarding what is artificial and what is natural, natural things are not necessarily alive and there is nothing to say we cannot create an artificial organism of some sort even if we haven't managed it so far. In the case of your nanobots there are lots of things you could examine to determine if they were artificial, for example, metalurgical analysis could tell you a lot about how they were made.
If the case that this hypothetical technology was so advanced as to be indistinguishable from natural life then I would take that as evidence of evolution on another planet.
Even if scientists insist that this technology can all be explained by applying Darwinian principles?
It depends on what the evidence points to, artifical nanobots points to alien creators (however unlikely that may be), organic life points to evolution.
Perhaps you could give an example of your hypothetical in-organic evolution on earth, incidently there is an example of organic molecules giving rise to self replicating machines - DNA.
Dawkins claims he has achieved inorganic evolution (lookup memes, I think), also some scientists have applied evolutionary principles to electronic design. There is no reason at all to suppose that Darwinian principles, if they work, shouldn't apply to inorganic processes. And no, there are no examples of organic molecules spontaneously giving rise to working DNA.
Although I would agree that ideas evolve provided that you assume that it not 'survival of the fittest' but 'survival of the most appealing' when talking about memes. although I am unclear how that helps your argument. I couldn't agree more, Darwinian principles could apply to in-organic processes if you could create in-organic processes that replicate life and reproduction. Manufacturing processes are precisely designed not to replicate life and thus Darwinian principles don't apply to manufactured products regardless of their complexity.
I would grant you that the evidence is only circumstantial (i.e that life is here) although abiogenesis only requires it to happen once not all the time as you imply.
You are missing the point in your analogy, since the supernatural is by definition automatically discounted within science then no amount of scientific evidence can prove that god did it.
Actually my analogy is about little green non-supernatural beings, and my question was all about whether we would accept evidence of design in complex mechanisms as being evidence of alien intelligence, even if there was an alternative Darwinian explanation.
You seem to be unclear on the assumptions you are making, if your nanobots are artificial (with an assumption that artificial can now mean little green man-made) then there is no alternative Darwinian explanation since Darwin's theory doesn't apply to manufactured items.
If you can provide some evidence of a designer that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it
There, you said it. Let me rephrase your statement in reference to the nanobots: "If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it". In that scenario, do you regard this as a rational statement?
That is not rephrasing it in terms of your nanobots, any alien intelligence could be adequately explained to be the result of evolution.
but the simple fact is that you can't because there is no such evidence.
Surely the evidence is staring at you in the face: a whole race of nanobots on the Moon that look for all the world like they were designed.
What do hypothetical artificial robots have to do with the fact that the evidence of your god/designer can be alternatively and adequately be described by evolutionary theory. You have given me no scenario in which an artificial robot could be the result of evolution.
Everything that has been put forward by the proponents of intelligent design (what a misnomer!) has been roundly discredited by real science.
I'd say it's more likely the nanobots were designed by an alien intelligence.
So would I, but then I dont believe you and I are artificial.
Hiya Caedes,
Thank you for at least playing along.
There is nothing arbitrary regarding what is artificial and what is natural, natural things are not necessarily alive and there is nothing to say we cannot create an artificial organism of some sort even if we haven't managed it so far. In the case of your nanobots there are lots of things you could examine to determine if they were artificial, for example, metalurgical analysis could tell you a lot about how they were made.
Well, what I was responding to was the claim that our moon nanobots are artificial and life is natural. This is surely an arbitrary distinction given the proviso that our nanobots in every sense exhibit signs of life (such as reproduction). And I agree, there is nothing to say we cannot create an artifical organism (life). But I don't see how metalurgical analysis could tell you how the nanobots were made, any more than biochemistry can tell you how organic life is made.
It depends on what the evidence points to, artifical nanobots points to alien creators (however unlikely that may be), organic life points to evolution.
There you go again. You cannot assume that nanobots have alien creators, you cannot just assume they are 'artificial', any more than you will allow a creationist to assume that humans are 'artificial' (ie created by someone). If you follow my argument, scientists have proposed that the nanobots are not artificial and that they evolved by Darwinian processes on the moon.
I couldn't agree more, Darwinian principles could apply to in-organic processes if you could create in-organic processes that replicate life and reproduction.
Good. In which case a complex, advanced, intelligent race of beings could emerge from in-organic processes. That's our nanobots.
Manufacturing processes are precisely designed not to replicate life and thus Darwinian principles don't apply to manufactured products regardless of their complexity.
Only because we don't currently have the technology to create self-replicating machines. When we do, we will.
I would grant you that the evidence is only circumstantial (i.e that life is here) although abiogenesis only requires it to happen once not all the time as you imply.
No, same thing applies to the nanobots, 'abiogenesis' happened only once, the rest is due to self replication and Darwin.
You seem to be unclear on the assumptions you are making, if your nanobots are artificial (with an assumption that artificial can now mean little green man-made) then there is no alternative Darwinian explanation since Darwin's theory doesn't apply to manufactured items.
Eh? I'm not saying the nanobots are artificial, you are. As far as I'm concerned, they evolved and are therefore not artificial.
That is not rephrasing it in terms of your nanobots, any alien intelligence could be adequately explained to be the result of evolution.
Actually, you cannot possibly state that as a fact. But assuming that there is an adequate explanation on evolutionary grounds, does that mean it is the only allowable explanation? But getting back to nanobots, what I asked previously was, in the context of our nanobot scenario is the following a rational statement:
"If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it."
Read that again, carefully. It actually says that if I have an adequate theory to explain the nanobots then there is no reason to believe there is any evidence for alien intelligence.
What do hypothetical artificial robots have to do with the fact that the evidence of your god/designer can be alternatively and adequately be described by evolutionary theory. You have given me no scenario in which an artificial robot could be the result of evolution.
But you already agreed that evolution equally applies to artificial, self replication machines. Given that we start off with one single self-replicating nanobot, you as an evolutionist should expect fully fledged advanced intelligent robots to emerge.
So would I, but then I dont believe you and I are artificial.
Nor are the nanobots. They evolved by Darwinian processes without any artifice whatsoever.
Nanobots - let me take a stab at this.
If we were studying the moon and found some complex, self-replicating "nanobots" , I would think we would face one of two scenarios:
1- We dig down through the layers of moon rock and find more and more simple "nanobots" and also differing, distinct living and fossilised machines that fit in to a tree of life. Further examination shows that the nanobots are related to all other machines on the planet. It looks like these evolved. The more we study, the more we find out.
2- We search the moon and find that the nanobots arrived suddenly, more or less as we find them now - complex, fully functioning. Then we may conclude that they were left behind by some intelligent beings or try to find some explanation for them.
Like one of the other posters, I'd like to see a credible anti-atheist argument - I really would. The more time that passes and the more evidence that is uncovered, the fewer gaps there are for gods to hide in.
I have to say that the nanobot example is pretty poor as a hypothetical question; bots are by definition designed entities like any other piece of technology, so essentially the question is already presuming what it seeks as its answer. All technology is teleological. What the hypothetical example is supposed to be getting at is whether purpose can be distinguished from function in a newly encountered "lifelike" phenomenon. It is very easy to confuse the two concepts and assume that functions are teleological; until a certain age, children regularly conflate the two and come up with novel teleological explanations for natural phenomena, e.g. Rocks are jagged so that animals can scratch themselves. Adults learn that in fact, teleology is more exceptional and that there must be intention for there to be purpose. So teleology should not be assumed outright unless there is evidence to the contrary. And for any technological object (like the watch or 747 that the creationists like to cite as examples), we recognize them as teleological because we are the ones who design them for particular purposes; we do not have to guess. The hypothetical example thus should be aimed at a situation in which teleology is not known a priori -- that it is a matter that needs to be discovered. Instead of assuming it outright, evidence should be found that establishes that these newly encountered objects exist because of conscious intention.
There is nothing arbitrary regarding what is artificial and what is natural, natural things are not necessarily alive and there is nothing to say we cannot create an artificial organism of some sort even if we haven't managed it so far. In the case of your nanobots there are lots of things you could examine to determine if they were artificial, for example, metalurgical analysis could tell you a lot about how they were made.
Well, what I was responding to was the claim that our moon nanobots are artificial and life is natural. This is surely an arbitrary distinction given the proviso that our nanobots in every sense exhibit signs of life (such as reproduction). And I agree, there is nothing to say we cannot create an artifical organism (life). But I don't see how metalurgical analysis could tell you how the nanobots were made, any more than biochemistry can tell you how organic life is made.
Again it depends on what the evidence points to. Reproduction is not a universal indicator of life, creating an artifial organism that replicates reproduction or any other natural phenomenon does not mean that such an organism is 'alive' in any meaningful way. In much the same way that even if you apply darwinian principles to the programming of a robot or an electronic circuit designer it does not mean that the robot or designer 'evolved'.
Metalurgical analysis would indicate the presence of materials not found in nature such as polymers, composites, alloys, crystalline structures not found naturally. All the sorts of empirical evidence that would indicate artifice. Just because you do not understand how a scientific process works does not mean that the process isn't understood by others, perhaps the most important point you could take away from this discussion!
It depends on what the evidence points to, artifical nanobots points to alien creators (however unlikely that may be), organic life points to evolution.
There you go again. You cannot assume that nanobots have alien creators, you cannot just assume they are 'artificial', any more than you will allow a creationist to assume that humans are 'artificial' (ie created by someone). If you follow my argument, scientists have proposed that the nanobots are not artificial and that they evolved by Darwinian processes on the moon.
If I am to follow your argument then it has to be based on what 'science' would really claim, that is, it would follow the evidence. If you were to restate your hypothetical argument in terms of some sort of 'grey goo' nanobots built of entirely organic materials in an environment with conditions conducive to chemical reactions such as another earth-like planet then you may have a point. In such an example then you would expect too see a wealth of evidence to support science in such a claim with no evidence of artificiality, in much the same way we see a wealth of evidence to support the theory all life on this planet evolved.
Of course, even if I were to take your example at face value you have to understand the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, it would be quite possible for artificial life to be left on the moon and for it to have 'evolved by Darwinian processes on the moon' without having any scientist then assume that your robots were natural and indigenous to the moon. Because evolution is a process that happens once you have life, it doesn't explain how life started.
I couldn't agree more, Darwinian principles could apply to in-organic processes if you could create in-organic processes that replicate life and reproduction.
Good. In which case a complex, advanced, intelligent race of beings could emerge from in-organic processes. That's our nanobots.
From an artificial start they have evolved into something more complex, ok.
Manufacturing processes are precisely designed not to replicate life and thus Darwinian principles don't apply to manufactured products regardless of their complexity.
Only because we don't currently have the technology to create self-replicating machines. When we do, we will.
Manufacturing processes are specifically designed to minimise variation in order to ensure that a function works in the same way time after time. Darwinian principles work through a huge amount of waste and the passage of time, neither of which we are prepared to accept in our manufactured goods.
I would grant you that the evidence is only circumstantial (i.e that life is here) although abiogenesis only requires it to happen once not all the time as you imply.
No, same thing applies to the nanobots, 'abiogenesis' happened only once, the rest is due to self replication and Darwin.
Except in this case it was not abiogenesis but the point at which they were first artificially created.
You seem to be unclear on the assumptions you are making, if your nanobots are artificial (with an assumption that artificial can now mean little green man-made) then there is no alternative Darwinian explanation since Darwin's theory doesn't apply to manufactured items.
Eh? I'm not saying the nanobots are artificial, you are. As far as I'm concerned, they evolved and are therefore not artificial.
Regardless of any subsequent evolution, the robots were initially created artificially and remain artificial. You are saying that hypothetically we can apply darwinian principles to artificial inorganic processes and that makes those processes natural, err no, I dont agree.
That is not rephrasing it in terms of your nanobots, any alien intelligence could be adequately explained to be the result of evolution.
Actually, you cannot possibly state that as a fact. But assuming that there is an adequate explanation on evolutionary grounds, does that mean it is the only allowable explanation? But getting back to nanobots, what I asked previously was, in the context of our nanobot scenario is the following a rational statement:
"If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it."
Read that again, carefully. It actually says that if I have an adequate theory to explain the nanobots then there is no reason to believe there is any evidence for alien intelligence.
No, I cant state it as a fact since this a hypothetical scenario, but once(if) we have evidence that there is alien intelligence on another planet then I would say that evolutionary theory will explain how complex life developed on that planet too assuming a similar form of life with a reproductive system. Does that mean it is the only allowable explanation? No, the evidence will point to the correct explanation. The point in regards to your hypothetical scenario is that you do not have an adequate alternative due to a faulty premise.
What do hypothetical artificial robots have to do with the fact that the evidence of your god/designer can be alternatively and adequately be described by evolutionary theory. You have given me no scenario in which an artificial robot could be the result of evolution.
But you already agreed that evolution equally applies to artificial, self replication machines. Given that we start off with one single self-replicating nanobot, you as an evolutionist should expect fully fledged advanced intelligent robots to emerge.
I should have used abiogenesis instead of evolution. It doesn't take away from the distinction between artificial and natural.
Hi Leolaia, thank you for joining us.
bots are by definition designed entities like any other piece of technology
But my nanobots are not designed, they evolved on the moon and there is an accepted scientific theory to explain how. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous, to insist that the nanobots did not evolve?
so essentially the question is already presuming what it seeks as its answer.
No, I don't answer any questions in my example. I only raised questions, you are pre-judging the outcome. Why not just answer the question?
The hypothetical example thus should be aimed at a situation in which teleology is not known a priori
Like mine for example?
Instead of assuming it outright
Which I don't
evidence should be found that establishes that these newly encountered objects exist because of conscious intention.
Good...
So, given that there is an alternative explanation for our nanobots (Darwinian evolution), would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon to be admissable evidence for alien intelligence?
Hi Caedes,
Again it depends on what the evidence points to. Reproduction is not a universal indicator of life, creating an artifial organism that replicates reproduction or any other natural phenomenon does not mean that such an organism is 'alive' in any meaningful way.
What would you consider as being 'alive' in a meaningful way? My nanobots procreate, build things, die, there is even some sign of intelligence. You seem to be limiting 'life' to simply life as we know it, Jim.
In much the same way that even if you apply darwinian principles to the programming of a robot or an electronic circuit designer it does not mean that the robot or designer 'evolved'
If a completely novel complex electronic circuit came into being by natural selection from an original simple circuit, then I would say the thing did evolve. After all, "evolution" is selection from variation. It doesn't just apply to organic life.
Metalurgical analysis would indicate the presence of materials not found in nature such as polymers, composites, alloys, crystalline structures not found naturally. All the sorts of empirical evidence that would indicate artifice. Just because you do not understand how a scientific process works does not mean that the process isn't understood by others, perhaps the most important point you could take away from this discussion!
Are you saying that if we find a material such as a polymer in our nanobots, then that proves that the nanobots did not evolve? So, all we need to do to disprove evolution is to find something in an organism that doesn't exist in nature? Do you see the circular argument if you go there?
It depends on what the evidence points to, artifical nanobots points to alien creators (however unlikely that may be), organic life points to evolution.
A pure assertion, both ways, and I can assure you that the nanobots are not artificial. They evolved on the moon, at least that's what the scientists tell us. Once they started reproducing, Darwinian evolution was inevitable. Why do you find this hard to accept?
If I am to follow your argument then it has to be based on what 'science' would really claim, that is, it would follow the evidence. If you were to restate your hypothetical argument in terms of some sort of 'grey goo' nanobots built of entirely organic materials in an environment with conditions conducive to chemical reactions such as another earth-like planet then you may have a point.
But dude, surely you've seen enough Star Treks to know that life-forms other than carbon based ones might exist?
In such an example then you would expect too see a wealth of evidence to support science in such a claim with no evidence of artificiality, in much the same way we see a wealth of evidence to support the theory all life on this planet evolved.
Yes, they found a wealth of evidence that the nanobots evolved - didn't I mention that?
Because evolution is a process that happens once you have life, it doesn't explain how life started.
Agreed. And yet, scientists take it on faith that life started spontaneously. So why not the nanobots?
Manufacturing processes are specifically designed to minimise variation
Sort of. There are all sorts of variation in manufacturing processes, say in a particular model of car. But I agree that overriding that is a strict control of what is and what is not acceptable for the process. Just like DNA exerts on species.
Darwinian principles work through a huge amount of waste and the passage of time, neither of which we are prepared to accept in our manufactured goods.
There are certainly commercial reasons why Ford might not want to build a self-reproducing car, but we'd love it as customers. It would great in the short term, and long term could be expected to become increasingly efficient and better 'designed'.
Except in this case it was not abiogenesis but the point at which they were first artificially created.
Once more, they were not artificially created, that is your assumption. That's what the little-green-men party say. Scientists assure us they started spontaneously, not only that, but that there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men. You appear to disagree.
Regardless of any subsequent evolution, the robots were initially created artificially and remain artificial. You are saying that hypothetically we can apply darwinian principles to artificial inorganic processes and that makes those processes natural, err no, I dont agree.
Again, no, the nanobots never were created and therefore are not artificial.
No, I cant state it as a fact since this a hypothetical scenario, but once(if) we have evidence that there is alien intelligence on another planet then I would say that evolutionary theory will explain how complex life developed on that planet too assuming a similar form of life with a reproductive system. Does that mean it is the only allowable explanation? No, the evidence will point to the correct explanation. The point in regards to your hypothetical scenario is that you do not have an adequate alternative due to a faulty premise.
OK, you've missed that point completely. It wasn't about the origin of alien intelligence. The question is whether or not the discovery of apparently designed non organic life on the moon is admissable evidence that alien intelligence exists.
Again it depends on what the evidence points to. Reproduction is not a universal indicator of life, creating an artifial organism that replicates reproduction or any other natural phenomenon does not mean that such an organism is 'alive' in any meaningful way.
What would you consider as being 'alive' in a meaningful way? My nanobots procreate, build things, die, there is even some sign of intelligence. You seem to be limiting 'life' to simply life as we know it, Jim.
I would say that it is an ethical dilemma for another thread. I do know that any universal definition of what 'life' is is not going to come from this board.
In much the same way that even if you apply darwinian principles to the programming of a robot or an electronic circuit designer it does not mean that the robot or designer 'evolved'
If a completely novel complex electronic circuit came into being by natural selection from an original simple circuit, then I would say the thing did evolve. After all, "evolution" is selection from variation. It doesn't just apply to organic life.
Yes, if that electronic circuit had some mechanism to replicate itself that used Darwinian principles then yes it has evolved (in the scientific sense of the word - not in the common meaning). When science says that something evolved they are not talking about abiogenesis.
Metalurgical analysis would indicate the presence of materials not found in nature such as polymers, composites, alloys, crystalline structures not found naturally. All the sorts of empirical evidence that would indicate artifice. Just because you do not understand how a scientific process works does not mean that the process isn't understood by others, perhaps the most important point you could take away from this discussion!
Are you saying that if we find a material such as a polymer in our nanobots, then that proves that the nanobots did not evolve? So, all we need to do to disprove evolution is to find something in an organism that doesn't exist in nature? Do you see the circular argument if you go there?
You missed my point, The presence of artificial materials indicates artificiality, i.e. that they were manufactured. It has nothing to do with any subsequent evolution of your nanobots.
A pure assertion, both ways, and I can assure you that the nanobots are not artificial. They evolved on the moon, at least that's what the scientists tell us. Once they started reproducing, Darwinian evolution was inevitable. Why do you find this hard to accept?
I would repeat my previous answer since the question is the same.
If I am to follow your argument then it has to be based on what 'science' would really claim, that is, it would follow the evidence. If you were to restate your hypothetical argument in terms of some sort of 'grey goo' nanobots built of entirely organic materials in an environment with conditions conducive to chemical reactions such as another earth-like planet then you may have a point.
But dude, surely you've seen enough Star Treks to know that life-forms other than carbon based ones might exist?
There may be other chemical combinations that produce lots of reactions, unfortunately none are as good at forming bonds as carbon. Which is the reason that carbon based life is likely to be a common building block throughout the universe, I ought to point out that I haven't stated it is the only possible form of life.
In such an example then you would expect too see a wealth of evidence to support science in such a claim with no evidence of artificiality, in much the same way we see a wealth of evidence to support the theory all life on this planet evolved.
Yes, they found a wealth of evidence that the nanobots evolved - didn't I mention that?
Then there is no evidence of artificiality, which makes your scenario completely different to the one that you outlined. It didn't take place on the moon etc.
Because evolution is a process that happens once you have life, it doesn't explain how life started.
Agreed. And yet, scientists take it on faith that life started spontaneously. So why not the nanobots?
Science takes nothing on faith, science is merely unaware of the mechanism of abiogenesis since there is no empirical evidence so far on which to base any theory. In the case of your nanobots then evidence of artificiality would be conclusive proof that they were made by an alien intelligence and did not evolve (using the word in its common rather than scientific sense)
Except in this case it was not abiogenesis but the point at which they were first artificially created.
Once more, they were not artificially created, that is your assumption. That's what the little-green-men party say. Scientists assure us they started spontaneously, not only that, but that there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men. You appear to disagree.
Regardless of any subsequent evolution, the robots were initially created artificially and remain artificial. You are saying that hypothetically we can apply darwinian principles to artificial inorganic processes and that makes those processes natural, err no, I dont agree.
Again, no, the nanobots never were created and therefore are not artificial.
I disagree due to the scenario you have outlined being inconsistant, see my previous answer.
OK, you've missed that point completely. It wasn't about the origin of alien intelligence. The question is whether or not the discovery of apparently designed non organic life on the moon is admissable evidence that alien intelligence exists.
Yes, it is evidence because of your use of the moon (a place entirely inhospitable to any kind of life) and your incorrect use of evolution. If you wish to you could re-phrase your scenario in terms consistant with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and the reality of scientific enquiry.
As I'm sure you know ye canna change the laws of physics cap'n!
Barefoot said:
So, given that there is an alternative explanation for our nanobots (Darwinian evolution), would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon to be admissable evidence for alien intelligence?
and:
Again, no, the nanobots never were created and therefore are not artificial.
and again:
Yes, they found a wealth of evidence that the nanobots evolved - didn't I mention that?
I think you are answering your own question here. If they evolved, were not designed and were not created, then I'd have to say that that is not evidence for alien intelligence.
I think that you need to redefine your scenario. Could you tell me whether it fits my scenario 1 or 2 in my previous post:
1- We dig down through the layers of moon rock and find more and more simple "nanobots" and also differing, distinct living and fossilised machines that fit in to a tree of life. Further examination shows that the nanobots are related to all other machines on the planet. It looks like these evolved. The more we study, the more we find out.
2- We search the moon and find that the nanobots arrived suddenly, more or less as we find them now - complex, fully functioning. Then we may conclude that they were left behind by some intelligent beings or try to find some explanation for them.
