is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products

And what evidence is that. DDT resistance?Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

What a strange non sequitur.

I mean whats the evidence of evolution that we see in the present. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Do you mean evidence of evolution occurring in the present, or evidence that it has occurred in the past that we see in the present?---May I take it that you concede my actual point, the one that I made?

Occuring in the present. Im not sure what point your referring to.

In the present we observe small amounts of evolution commensurate with the small amount of time we've been looking. DDT resistance would be one example, yes. The one I made.You claimed in general that coded information is the product of intelligence. But this is untrue in the particular case to which you wish to apply it, namely living organisms. We know that the genetic code in (for example) a daffodil was caused by two daffodils unintelligently having sex, and that unintelligent (and, of course, non-supernatural) processes of DNA copying and recombination and mutation and so forth were all that were required to produce the code. That's what we see.So the specific case in which you wish to apply your supposedly general rule is a known counter-example to it! It's as though you were to say: "All machines work by electricity. Therefore, steam engines work by electricity", or: "All birds can fly. Therefore, ostriches can fly."

Living organisms can reproduce and pass on genetic code, but natural selection doesnt explain the origin of code. The problem is what you need to get natural selection in the first place. Natural selection presupposes a self-replicating organism that can reproduce and create offspring. The organism is conducted by information in the DNA, which is what you are trying to explain the origin of. Biochemist Christian de Duve says, "Theories of prebiotic natural selection need information, which implies that they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place." Its like the guy who falls in a pit and says no problem, Ill go home and get a ladder. So he runs home, gets a ladder, comes back to the pit and climbs out.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Not quite.Natural selection is simply the environment.It really is that simple.

Which is why I didn't say it could, nor mentioned natural selection in my post.My actual point, the one I made, remains what I actually said it was. When we look at living organisms, we find coded information without an intelligent cause. This means that you can't claim that coded information always has an intelligent cause, because this is known to be untrue. And if you wish to imagine that there was once an organism the information in which did have an intelligent cause, then the onus of proof is on you.

How do you determine that a living organism is unintelligent?Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Well, I gave the example of daffodils. They seem quite unintelligent. Could we not agree on that as common ground?But even in the case of intelligent organisms, let us say Pierre and Marie Curie, the process that produced the information was itself unintelligent. He and she may have used their big Nobel-Prize-winning brains to decide to have a child, or at least to have hot scientist-on-scientist sex, but they did not intelligently design its genome, did they?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hmm ... let's look at some other things Quastler said. Here's a precis of his book The Emergence of Biological Organization (Yale University Press, 1964). Note the direct quote at the end. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.