When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi Ringo, I did not say there was anything outside of the DNA to cause any of its reactions to happen.The Genes which contain the DNA information tells it to make other molecule called proteins.These proteins enable cells to preform special functions.I did ask the question of whether this information was provided by intelligence or happened by accident.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes, I absolutely am telling you that. That conception of a gene is a very out of date one, and has been for decades.Genes can encode information for multiple protein isoforms or for functional RNA molecules. Clearly information is not DNA. If you mean am I telling you that DNA does not contain information then I would say no, DNA certainly does contain infromation by a number of definitions, it is agreeing on the suitable definitions and subsequently quantifying the information that tends to be the tricky part. My answer still fits your question. As soon as there is a genetic medium capable of self replication there is the potential for the process I described.Exactly what the minimal form of such a system is is not clear but I see no reaon to simply assume it is one impossible to arise at naturally. It will certainly be orders of magnitude simpler than the 'first cell' that you posit.TTFN,WK

The answer to both of those questions is "No, it was not provided by intelligence or by accident."

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi jar,Welcome back. By universe I mean everything material that we can see and everything we can not see that exists.By creation I mean the beginning of existence of the universe.We know the universe exists. We can observe it.Did it begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago as put forth?ORHas it always existed in some form?I go with the latter. Are you saying it came from non existence?If so by what process was that accomplished? How do you determine those forces are natural? We do have what we call the laws of physics. These are rules for certain things to happen in certain ways.The question is where did these laws come from?Were they provided by intelligence?ORWhere they provided by some accident?They did have to exist before the universe began to expand.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I didn't say you did. Since this is an Intelligent Design topic, I'm just saying that there's no intelligence required for molecules to do what they do. There's no designer required to design molecules or give them instructions. No. Molecules don't "tell" anything to do anything. They are capable of doing certain reactions because of their shape, nothing more. Again, there is no "information", only the shape/structure of the molecule. And there's no "accident" about it either. A molecule can do a specific set of reactions based on its structure. Under a specific set of conditions, the reactions are highly predictable.A complex molecule like DNA has a complex set of reactions and a small change in conditions can cause a radical change in the exact series of reactions. A change in the structure of the molecule - i.e. a mutation - causes a change in the series of reactions that it does.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

Brief off-topic interlude:Why do creationists have to corrupt the language?In an attempt to make it appear that scientists adhere to textbooks with some kind of blind unthinking faith, you equate textbooks with the bible, and scientists with faithful followers.This amounts to nothing more than a lie. A quick google search (define:holy) shows your attempt to change the use of the word "holy" is fatally flawed. And, it doesn't help your case at all because the analogy is incorrect anyway!Epic fail! But then that's creation "science" for you.Definitions of "holy" from the search:

--belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power

​

--Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). ...

​

--A thing that is extremely holy; used almost exclusively in Holy of Holies; Dedicated to a religious purpose or a god; Revered in a religion; Perfect or flawless; Separated or set apart from (something unto something or someone else)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering...

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We can say with a very high degree of confidence, so high that the term certain is appropriate, that the universe we see has not always existed. I am not saying that it came from non-existence however it most certainly did not exist. HUH. By observation. When we reduce the temperature of water at nomal atmospheric pressure below zero degrees centigrade it freezes. No intelligence needed. Even if they were provided by some intelligence that is irrelevant and unimportant.Nor are the only option accident or intelligence.There is however evidence of accidents so that is a possibility.There is no evidence though of some designer.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

First some thoughts on these questions.The idea of a paper-clip can occur to one person. They can perceive a problem with holding together some papers, try to think of a solution and come up with some sort of pinching clip, the ends of which must be rounded so as not to damage the papers, or for the purpose of broadening the pinched surface (or something along those lines).The space shuttle cannot be conceived in every detail by any one person alone. It contains too many techniques, materials, processes and whatever else you can think of for one person to be able to design the whole thing in every detail. It builds on the cumulative knowledge of hundreds of years of science and technology, and the time is long past when any single person could know everything that was known.So, the paper-clip can be seen as intelligently designed. It's an apparent deliberate solution to a well-defined problem. The space shuttle, on the other hand, although a magnificent piece of work, is a convolution of designed parts, cobbled-together solutions, serendipitous inventions, discovered principles of chemistry and physics, lucky mistakes, unlucky choices, budget decisions, et cetera, et cetera. Intelligent design is in there somewhere, but it's certainly not the whole story.So your last question is a misrepresentation of the comparison between a paper-clip and a space shuttle, as far as them being intelligently designed is concerned. Now, for some meat on the bones.The above does not detract from the meaning of your question, which I think is "how do we decide whether something is intelligently designed or not". The way you presented it makes it apparent that you think a certain level of complexity is an indicator of intelligence. As I've tried to show, some very simple things are intelligently designed, whereas some very complex things are not - at least not completely. So complexity actually isn't a very good indicator.I think we should not so much concentrate on the complexity of the end result of a design process, but more on the process itself, i.e. the different ways in which design can arise. Since we like to think in dichotomies let's consider two methods: planned design, and trial and error.With the first method a designer needs to think things through, set a goal that is to be achieved, and anticipate any problems that might arise. You cannot have planned design without a plan, and you cannot have a plan without a planner.The trial and error method is different, however. By definition, there can be no set goal, and no plan to achieve it, because you don't know what errors will occur that will steer the process in continually differing directions. And without a goal and a plan there is no need for a planner. All that is needed is a mechanism for generating trials and a testing environment that eliminates the errors. In principle, it can be a purely mechanical process.Another hallmark of the trial and error method is that the results are sometimes brilliant, but not always. Often, they're just good enough to pass the test to survive until the next trial. Also, once a certain path has been taken that leads to a design like the human eye, with its retinal layer behind the nerve layer - a design that isn't optimal, but suffices - then there's no turning back to correct the error. Mutations in the direction of a reversal of the layers tend to be detrimental and will generally be wiped out. To sum it up:

Complexity is not necessarily an indicator of intelligent design;

Design can arise in more that one way, and can be a mechanical process;

Sub-optimal designs may be good enough, but cannot be reversed.

​

I hope this helps.

​

(added by edit)
An afterthought on the fine-tuning argument: I think the universe is finely tuned to wipe out all life at the earliest possible occasion, but that life is too good at hiding in improbable places for its demise to have happened yet.

​

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

​

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Chemical reactions. They're trying. And they're making progress.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Hi Parasomnium. It's real simple. Anything that is designed by an intelligent agent is intelligently designed, which, of course includes the paper clip and the little straight pin. Paper clips do not simply emerge naturally from elements so the design of them derives from intelligence.Everything manufactured, after it is designed requires complex machines and intelligent personel to produce as well.My understanding is that when science refers to ID, it doesn't matter how simple or complex the designed thing is. It matters whether it came about randomly or intelligently design.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Please, for the love of god, PLEASE stop saying this as though it was an either/or proposition. Something can come about that is neither random nor intelligently designed. If you learn nothing else here, please learn this. I beg of you.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Sure. The problem is that the inference is unidirectional. We infer the design of the paperclip given the presence of paperclip designers (in this case, the Gem Manufacturing Company in 1870.) We cannot infer any notion of a designer just from the paper clip.We know that things are designed because we see designers design them. We can't know that they're designed only from the end results, because the universe contains means of arriving at the appearance of design without the presence of any designers. This is certainly not the case in ID as its most prominent proponents describe it, such as Michael Behe.

Even an alien from outer space could soon distinguish things manufactured from things like rocks, snowflakes (all different), stalagmites etc. They see things made of steel, plastic etc almost cry out, "I'm designed." Though there are a few exceptions, most things like rocks and stalagmites, snowflakes are all different according to the elements which make them up and the environs. There are different sized paperclips but according to the manufacture, all have the same design.

Of course. Even an alien can see that paper clips and cars were designed and stuff like rocks and living things are NOT designed. It is so obvious that no reasoning critter could mistake the two.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes, because they probably have people in their civilization that make steel and plastic and make things out of those materials.Living things aren't made out of steel or plastic. Living things first emerged on Earth almost 3 billion years ago, long before the existence of human beings, which are the only beings we know of in the universe capable of intelligent design. Indeed - perfect replication is a feature of design. In the biological world, individuals differ, frequently substantially, from other individuals. Even from their own siblings.Even identical twins differ physically. This is a powerful indication that biological organisms were not designed, they evolved.