What clues would you expect to find in a designed species??

[Canto]

But wouldnt designing machine life be trivial by comparison?

Anyways, I keep going back to a video from DonExodus2 here about "Same Gene's, Same designer" and why that arguement fails. I think it would probably apply here.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I would not say trivial by any means. Honestly, nanotechnology is going to be about designing proteins and compounds that do the exact same kinds of processes that cells do, and eventually the difference between biotech, nanotech and robotics will be incredibly blurry. Between quantum computing and biotech who knows what we could design a species to be - I will guarantee you it will be damn cool, but very easy to distinguish from other forms of life on this planet.

There are still some incredibly hurdles to overcome, so it certainly wouldn't be trivial. I've never seen the video you reference... so I have no idea what argument you are applying. Not sure how it could apply to a thought project like this, but I'd be interested.

 

[Canto]

Here's the link for the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE&feature=channel_page

 

[Ozymandyus]

Here's the link for the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE&feature=channel_page

He is arguing the case for why its clear that on this planet all life has common ancestors...

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at all? If anything, we would use exactly this sort of evidence to separate out the designed and native species. In this discussion, we are talking about two different sets of species created by two different designers, one - the native species that evolved on this foreign planet, and the other a species designed by someone to exist on the foreign planet. I'm just baffled as to how this argument applies in the way you think it does.. explain?

I guess you could be wondering how we would know that the species that had clear evidence of uncommon descent was created by our great great grandfather... Undoubtedly there would be some evidence for that as well, though it wasn't the question. There may well be some irreducible complexity, such as in the 'machines' that I posited earlier - they clearly could not have evolved by a natural process. There would almost definitely be a reference to something familiar to you, or at least to your history, whether it be that the organisms would use quantum computing, or proteins you are familiar with, or dna, rather than whatever the native species used. There would be archaelogical evidence of this new species suddenly booming onto the scene fully formed with no past history on the planet. They would be clearly better adapted to the environment, if they were perfectly designed... And I'm sure there would be lots more clues.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I understand where you are coming from at all...

 

[Canto]

You said before that the species would quickly dominate the planet. I took that to mean that the genetic structure you had designed would be the only one left on the planet. Thats where same genes same designer comes into my thought process.

I'm out of my depth here for the most part as I've never taken a biology course that includes genetics and evolution. My teenage years were spent in a christian school and evolution was taught only enough for the state standard testing. Genetics were barely touched. Most of what I do comprehend is self studied so there are bound to be errors. But I am finding this to be a fascinating and educational discussion.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You said before that the species would quickly dominate the planet. I took that to mean that the genetic structure you had designed would be the only one left on the planet. Thats where same genes same designer comes into my thought process.

I'm out of my depth here for the most part as I've never taken a biology course that includes genetics and evolution. My teenage years were spent in a christian school and evolution was taught only enough for the state standard testing. Genetics were barely touched. Most of what I do comprehend is self studied so there are bound to be errors. But I am finding this to be a fascinating and educational discussion.

I'm glad that you are enjoying the discussion. You shouldn't worry too much about any potential "errors" because there are plenty of experts on the innertubes who will correct you when necessary.

 

[Grimlock]

But I am finding this to be a fascinating and educational discussion.

And in the end that,´s all you can ask of a good debate.

But lets slack a little on the designed species obviously if they where TOO perfect they would with 95% probability make all the other life out there extinct.

So lets just say that there are a few human errors in their design that does that they doesn,´t become the all dominating species on the planet there are still indigenous ones here and there.

But as said before they have evolved both of the two species and as such any clues as to what they might have looked before isn,´t really useful.

Lets take humans as an example

From our early ancestors

To modern day humans

Now if you where only to go on the visual clues well lets just say Humans wouldn,´t be my first choice of how that spices might look today.

So granddad could have said well i designed my species to look like a Turkish colored snake with arms.

Well unfortunately when you look out onto the planet there aren,´t any Turkish snakes with arms heck there might not even be any snakes at all.

Now this is just an example (hope it doesn,´t degrade the debate, my bumbling commentaries have a way of doing so) and granddads species could have been any the point is that there aren,´t any species out there that looks like the creatures described in his records.

So they have evolved so how does one find this one designed species in the myriad of different species that exists on this planet.