A transitional thought experiment

Imagine the following row of man-made designs arranged in ascending order according to their level of complexity:

- a black penciled drawing of a simple stick man;
- a colored water based painting of a man;
- an oil painting of a man;
- a clay sculpture of a man;
- a wired framed sculpture of a man;
- the Statue of David produced by Michelangelo;
- a dressmaker's mannequin, complete with head and legs, of a male;
- a store mannequin of a male;
- a car crash dummy of a male;
- a lifelike wax figure of a man made for the Tussaud museum;
- a first generation male robot;
- a second generation male robot with AI;
- a third generation male robot with AI in the experimental stages;
- a fully articulating first generation male android with AI;
- a fully articulating and interactive second generation male android with AI;
- a fully fully articulating and interactive third generation male android that passes the Turing Test;

All of the above are obviously intelligently designed.

Now let us further suppose that in the above list there exists in reality innumerable transitional designs numbering in the billions.

Clearly we are able to organize all of the transitional designs according to a level of complexity.

We can also project that, given enough time, even millions of years of advancing science, we would be able to add to that list immeasurably; and furthermore we would be able to state that the last design included in our list at the end of that time should correspond to an android that for all perceptible and measurable purposes cannot be distinguished from a human male (it even having passed the Uncanny Valley test - look it up).

Here is the key: the last design included should correspond to an android that for all perceptible and measurable purposes cannot be distinguished from a human male.

All following designs, therefore, must also be indistinguishable from a human male up to the point of but not including a human male.

Using science then, explain the purely random nature of any next design in the series.

Science will tell us that such a randomness cannot exist. And if the last series of designs are for all perceptible and measurable purposes indistinguishable from a real human male to the degree that it cannot even be known if a human male is included in the list, account for the probability that such a final series of designs, which may or may not include a real human male (because we can no longer tell, remember?), must have been created through random processes.

Can we get a succinct tl;dr? I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.

I think I know where you are going with this thread.

Just come out and say it...."I believe man was created by God and evolution is BS"


Did I get close?

a reply to: olaru12

If that's the case then "same #, different day" (aka "business as usual" for this forum). But then if you had evidence you wouldn't need to rely on overwrought, logically compromised ontological arguments.

originally posted by: olaru12
I think I know where you are going with this thread.

Just come out and say it...."I believe man was created by God and evolution is BS"


Did I get close?

I'm trying to point out that the same protocols used for evaluating random design processes in evolutionary thinking aught to be applicable to any system of ever increasing complexity of design; because at the end of the day, without the sequencing of design elements according to an arbitrary protocol, there can be no comprehension of emergent complexity.

Organization, classification, and sequencing of ideas is at the root of macro evolutionary thinking. And as my above list demonstrates, this even applies to a list of data points that we can already know are intelligently designed.

The reason both macro evolutionary thinking and intelligent design thinking work is because of this capacity we have for organization, classification, and sequencing of ideas.

I don't believe in macro evolution. There is a break even analysis point of complexity beyond which the intelligent versus random process arguments merge; and the trend in that merging tends towards a pre-existing intelligence.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: olaru12

If that's the case then "same #, different day" (aka "business as usual" for this forum). But then if you had evidence you wouldn't need to rely on overwrought, logically compromised ontological arguments.

Logically compromised ontological argument? I'm sorry, I guess I never got the memo.

Suffice is to say that I am in the 99th percentile compared with adults in abilities and aptitudes. I was part owner of a computer corp, won several awards, was a member of several engineering societies, was in two published books, and because of my logical way of thinking, was able to amass a very, very great wealth. So if I am a fool, my foolishness pays the bills and then some. I always tell folks that I am Mensa to those who ask and the village idiot to those who don't.

a reply to: prodiffenon

This is a very long and drawn out way of saying "I am unfamiliar with the intricacies and independent lines of evidence behind the Theory of Evolution".

Same #, different day

a reply to: prodiffenon

How does an orgasm feel with intellectual masturbation?

Just about to graduate and start grad school....right?

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: prodiffenon

How does an orgasm feel with intellectual masturbation?

Just about to graduate and start grad school....right?

Read my earlier response to GetHyped.

originally posted by: prodiffenon

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: prodiffenon

How does an orgasm feel with intellectual masturbation?

Just about to graduate and start grad school....right?

Read my earlier response to GetHyped.

Holy ****..........I'm impressed.

How about the orgasm part? And you did bring up Mensa without being asked...good show!

a reply to: prodiffenon

That's pretty much what I'm basing my statement on.

originally posted by: prodiffenon

Suffice is to say that I am in the 99th percentile compared with adults in abilities and aptitudes.

Shame it's on the wrong side of the bell curve.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: prodiffenon

Suffice is to say that I am in the 99th percentile compared with adults in abilities and aptitudes.

Shame it's on the wrong side of the bell curve.

LOL! Wealth man...wealth! If I'm on the wrong side of the bell curve then it sure works for me!

Seriously though, ad hominid attacks are so five minutes ago.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: prodiffenon

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: prodiffenon

How does an orgasm feel with intellectual masturbation?

Just about to graduate and start grad school....right?

Read my earlier response to GetHyped.

Holy ****..........I'm impressed.

How about the orgasm part? And you did bring up Mensa without being asked...good show!

Its called defensive parenthetical remarking. Guilty as charged. Next crime please.

originally posted by: prodiffenon

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: prodiffenon

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: prodiffenon

How does an orgasm feel with intellectual masturbation?

Just about to graduate and start grad school....right?

Read my earlier response to GetHyped.

Holy ****..........I'm impressed.

How about the orgasm part? And you did bring up Mensa without being asked...good show!

Its called defensive parenthetical remarking. Guilty as charged. Next crime please.

It wasn't a crime....just bad taste!

Can we get back to your witnessing for the Lord? Without all the arrogant self serving rhetoric.

I can see the point the OP is making. Unfortunately, I'm also seeing, "Your answer isn't good enough, but I don't have a better one." Still, it's a lot better than "My answer is better than yours because God".

OP: I believe your initial list of complexity to be seriously flawed, therefore your whole premise goes out the window.

Let me explain. 4th on your list is a clay sculpture of a man, which requires no technology to produce (you go down to the local riverbank and dig some clay and shape it to look like yourself or someone you know), we have unearthed clay sculptures tens of thousands of years old. However, a pencil drawing of a stick figure requires a pencil and paper--which came much later in human development.

There are others but I think you get the point.



Olaru12: You made me LOL, stars

@ OP

I have one question that could make or break this... Do the robots/androids have the ability to self replicate? This is after all THE necessary mechanism for mutations that drive an organism towards greater complexity.

Otherwise this comes off like "a digital twist" on presuppositional apologetics.

Also... (for the lolz)

23 P of C in the H B
11 P in a F (S) T
64 S on a C B

a reply to: Degradation33
ok you just sowed a seed in my head that is well outside of the scope of this thread...

sort of: If a robot can self-replicate, does that mean its its own god?

A chunk of coal and a rock surface in a cave does not require the tech to produce a stickman . a reply to: RifRAAF