Show me the intelligence ...

quote:

---

Am I to take it, judging by the sharp change in direction,
that there is nothing that anyone can think of about
any object that they may come across from which the input
of an intelligence could be inferred/deduced or otherwise
determined?

---

The pocket watch fits in fine here, which has probably been mentioned. It is complex but doesn't reproduce. How about this question, if a machine were able to reproduce (von Neumann machine), would we assume intelligence had a role or assume abiogenesis followed by evolution, and why?

quote:

---

Life in itself is good, there are flaws, which keeps things from being perfect, life is still GOOD. I think MOST people would at least agree with me on that.

---

I agree with that. Can you agree that if natural selection were in fact guiding the evolution of species that we would expect designs that were GOOD ENOUGH? In agreeing with the previous statement, you are not agreeing that evolution in fact happens or happened in the past, but rather that designs that are good enough would be the most probable outcome of evolution.I am just trying to point out that if we lower the bar for intelligent design to GOOD instead of PERFECT it may be indistinguishable from evolutionary processes.

quote:

---

. . . I for one am not completely sure how to read the questions for an answer at Smith's title "Did Darwin Get It Right?" onto page 198 said, "The question of stasis and punctuation will be settled by a stastistical analysis of the fossil record. But what of the wider issues? Is mutation plus natural selection within populations sufficient to explain evolution on a large scale, or must new mechanisms be proposed?" I hope this helps. Best Brad.

---

Let me see if I can get this across succinctly (I have a hard time even explaining it to myself). Darwin could be right even if mutation does not answer all the questions and other mechanisms are needed. That is, Darwin's main push was that organisms varied within species and the individuals that best fit their environment are better able to pass on those traits. So for Darwinism, you need selection and the passing on of traits. Secondly, you need a way to create the diversity within species, but mutation never is mentioned specifically because the importance of DNA had yet to be discovered. So, there could be a situation where certain traits are passed on (such as memes, possibly?) that are not controlled by DNA and therefore not affected by mutation. It is the Neo-Darwinian view that relies upon changes in the DNA sequence for the mill grist. However, natural selection is needed in both theories.What design puts forth is the possibility that there could be other forces at work without putting forth a mechanism. Some claim that there are sequences that are predestined to mutate in a very precies way in order to express a certain phenotype given the right conditions. I think it is the random nature of mutation that has to be investigated if both theories are going to be tested on even footing. So far, randomness can be seen (although there are exceptions) and to my knowledge there are no genes that have been shown to be pre-destined for precise mutations that would evidence forsight when encountering new environments. In fact, the literature seems to strongly support that random, inserted sequences can randomly mutate, and through selection, confer higher fitness.What it boils down to for me is that the ID inference with respect to random/non-random mutations is interesting, but is not supported at all.

I think I might be on the right path here, Brad.1. You seem to be saying that the difference between the evo/ID theories may be comparable to the Contact/Chemical theory of voltage production with two metals. Faraday with the Chemical theory of electric production and Volta's theory of metal contact via fluid. It was chemical vs. physical movement of electrons, in a round about sort of way. My reference here. Could you define what Faradays a, b, and x signify. I could probably find it but I am feeling lazy.2. Tetrahymena macronuclear digestion: I found this paper, and judging by the abstract I can see where you are coming from. There seems to be controlled DNA rearrangement in some species that results in reproducible positive phenotypes. This article might be a decent thread on its own.I might as well copy the abstract here for any lurkers:Genetics, Vol. 148, 1109-1115, March 1998, Copyright 1998High Frequency Intragenic Recombination During Macronuclear Development in Tetrahymena thermophila Restores the Wild-type SerH1 Gene
J. C. Deaka and F. P. Doerdera
Department of Biology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115Macronuclear development in ciliates is characterized by extensive rearrangement of genetic material, including sequence elimination, chromosome fragmentation and telomere addition. Intragenic recombination is a relatively rare, but evolutionarily important phenomenon occurring in mitosis and meiosis in a wide variety of organisms. Here, we show that high frequency intragenic recombination, on the order of 30%, occurs in the developing amitotic macronucleus of the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. Such recombination, occurring between two nonsense transition mutations separated by 726 nucleotides, reproducibly restores wild-type expression of the SerH1 surface protein gene, thus mimicking complementation in trans heterozygotes. Recombination must be considered a potentially important aspect of macronuclear development, producing gene combinations not present in the germinal micronucleus. end abstract.3. Form before function: You seem to be stating that because form can precede function in a way that indicates foresight in environmental adaption. Just as a gross example, a leg will develop before the organism runs on it. Am I getting this right?4. Importance of physics in biology: You really didn't go into this in depth, although you say you will in the future. My stance is that even though organisms are subject to physics in a broad sense, it is the aim of natural selection to weed out poor kinematics and concentrate good kinematics. You might also mention how or if physics overpowers the chemical nature of the cell. Just a thought.Overall, I would like to here more on this. This is among the most interesting ID musings that I have read recently. Hope to hear back soon.