The Argument Clinic

[misterme987 (Andrew P.)]

@Meerkat_SK5

“The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.6”

That says exactly what I said. “Self-replicating automata.” Von Neumann’s universal constructor must be programmed to make copies of itself before it can self-replicate, because it is a machine. This says absolutely nothing about whether ‘common design,’ apart from common ancestry, can produce nested hierarchies…

@Meerkat_SK5

You just made my point that I was trying to get @John_Harshman to accept, but he claimed that I was misinterpreting the sources I gave him showing that functional components or requirements can produce nested patterns as well. He thinks ONLY a flesh and blood common ancestor can explain those patterns.

I seriously doubt that @John_Harshman actually holds the belief that you are attributing to him. Of course, if you program a machine or simulation to self-replicate, using descent with modification and vertical inheritance, that will create the same nested hierarchy as biological common ancestry, since it is based on the same principles. That’s how I programmed the simple simulation of common ancestry that was used in the OP. [Edit: referring to the OP of this thread] But again, this says nothing about whether ‘common design’ apart from common ancestry can explain nested hierarchies, since it is based on precisely the same principles as biological common ancestry.