too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

In the recently closed thread 'True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)- it was stated by
Crashfrog in message #37:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the best- the absolute, tip top best designs in the history
of design- is unable to match the complexity and effectiveness
of the human body, isn't it proof that it is too complex to have been designed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Also stated by Chiroptera in message #38:----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The human body is far too complex to have been designed by a sentient entity"
----------------------------------------------------------------------Forget what he means by "sentient" for now- I am just dying
to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer
and 2. is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is
the only logical explanation. Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!! This is why we Creationsts call a person smart enough
to come up with a design as intelligent as the human body GOD!!!
I (still) CDESIGN

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

How do you measure the "intelligence" of a design?...eh, never mind. It's not like you respond to rebuttals, anyway. Are you ever going to address the evidence put before you in that thread?

Please provide a disigner that can design a human body and provide evidence of said designers existence. Your faliure to resloves 1 leads (inevitably) to 2.Sleep tight.

Hi, IC. Glad to see that you've decided to stay with us.

quote:

---

I am just dying
to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer
and 2. is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is
the only logical explanation.

---

I dunno. Me, I'm dying to know how a "design" can be so complex as to rule out selection of best designs among naturally occurring variations over a long period of time.I'm also dying to find out who, exactly, is saying, "an accident is the only logical explanation."-

quote:

---

Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!!

---

That's interesting. This "real world" you come from...do you live there, or does it treat you on an out-patient basis?Edited by Chiroptera, : Added "over a long period of time."

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

And what do you call the being that designed this alleged "God"?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

When we look at "designs" they can, at one level, be devided into two camps:1: Those designs which are known to be designed by an intelligence (ours). These designs are, when done well, "elegant"; using only what is needed to solve the problem. Designs which, in a family of objects, (e.g., cars) undergo periodic major changes of the structure of components with no connection to the component before (e.g., drum brakes to disk brakes)2. Those designs that we have seen built by computerized evolutionary processes. These designs are usually almost or entirely incomprehensible. They are "messy" not "elegant". They exhibit connections to previous designs that arose during the process.I'm not aware of any other overall types of design families.When we examine the "design" of living things we see a type 2 "design". They are enormously messy and complex. When we can sort out what is going on we see that much of the complexity can be done without. We see connections to earlier "models".In other words, living things exhibit precisely the kind of very complex designs that we know evolutionary processes produce. They do NOT exhibit the characteristics of a design done by the only intelligent designer we know of.Edited by NosyNed, : spelling boo boo

How do you measure the "intelligence" of a design?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I measure the "intelligence' of a design by how complicated it
was to achieve the goal. When a feature of the body has to have many
functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions
design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design.You haven't answer my questions that opened this thread Crashfrog.

Let's say you're designing a device to move small portion of food from a plate to your mouth.You have two choices. You can design a series of levers, pullies, and shovels that, when hooked up to a motor and power source, will cause a scooping mechanism to lower itself into the food, raise a small portion into the air, carry it towards your mouth, and tip forward.Or, you can stick three prongs of metal onto the end of a longer piece of metal.The second design, which we'll go ahead and call a "fork," is much simpler. The second design, which we'll call "a ridiculous Rude Goldberg contraption," is much more complex. Both will, quite effectively, move food to your mouth.Which would you say is the more intelligent design?

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I love your sense of humor Chiroptera, I really do- I bet you are a blast to be around.---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also dying to find out who, exactly, is saying, "an accident is the only logical explanation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life? By the way where ARE all the accidents that should be all around us? How come ,for instance,
we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing?
ICEdited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

Why, when we know that mutation and selection working together can produce the same kind of designs? You didn't ask any questions. Did you notice that there wasn't a single sentence in your post that ended with a question mark? The only questions in your post are the ones that you quoted but didn't address.

What makes you think we don't? Deformed animals are kind of creepy but there's no shortage of specimens. How many of your objections to evolution are based on asserting that something doesn't exist just because you don't know about it? It continually amazes me that people like you conclude that ignorance is a great basis from which to attack a scientific theory.Oh, and just to point out how you're not really thinking these things through - all monkeys, and indeed, all hominids, have mouths on the sides of their heads - the front side. Strictly speaking a mouth in-line with the digestive tract, like most animals have, would be on the top of the head.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I think that you raise a very important point. If we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design but rather Ignorant Design.Another sure sign that living things were not designed by some designer is the fact that good ideas do not get replicated across all living things. See this thread for a discussion of that aspect.Frankly, complexity and piss poor design, crap just barely good enough to get by is all that is seen when we look at living things. The human is a great example, overly complex. poorly designed, sloppy build, light of no QC or error correction built into the critter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I love your sense of humor Chiroptera, I really do- I bet you are a blast to be around.

---

It all depends on the company I keep.-

quote:

---

Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life?

---

No. Selection is important, too. Here is a brief description of the theory of evolution that I wrote; I'd make some changes if I were to rewrite it today, but it gives the basic idea of what evolution is all about.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Actually that is an good description of Ignorant Design.Intelligent Design should be as simple as possible, with as many redundant systems as possible and as few possible areas for failure as possible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion