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

articulett writes:Regarding your weird hypothetical. If a bacteria (or any life) had no means of reproducing, then naturally, they'd die out. So would you, if your cells could not copy themselves.

DrAdequate writes:Who alleges this, and in what psychiatric institution are they confined?

Dr Adequate writes:It's true by definition.

Dr Adequate writes:You can, if you don't mind being wrong.If I told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you reply "Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that 9 + 3 = 4"?

Dr Adequate writes:Various definitions have been given of life (depending on whether or not one wishes to exclude things like viruses) but they all seem to include some form of replication.

Ringo writes:They weren't life until they had all of the characteristics of life, including reproduction.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum: ..........................A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
An enzyme that can build cell walls
An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes
Obviously, the E. coli cell itself is the product of billions of years of evolution, so it is complex and intricate -- much more complex than the first living cells. Even so, the first living cells had to possess:A cell wall
The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
The ability to split itself to reproduce ...............................Most likely, it will be many years before research can completely answer any of the three questions mentioned here. Given that DNA was not discovered until the 1950s, the research on this complicated molecule is still in its infancy, and we have much to learn.

Ringo writes:They weren't life until they had all of the characteristics of life, including reproduction.

onifre writes:Its real simple, Buz, how did the designer create it then?The above quote better suits a god-like designer and should read:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so suddenly, I mean suddenly, from a god-like designer, the first living organism just popped into existence equipped with it all, including the capability to reproduce itselfy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's spontaneous creation, the kind you support.

Jar writes:For ID to ever become anything more than a pitiful joke, a laughing stock, we would need to learn how the thing, be it a star or an eye, was created. We need to know that the shin bone was connected to the ankle bone, and that it was done with muscles and ligaments and the muscles and ligament evolved from undifferentiated stem cells and that the fuel for that was ...

crashfrog writes: No, it's likely that the first unambiguously living things were descended from ambiguously maybe-living things that could reproduce, which were themselves descended from unambiguously non-living chemical self-replicators.Honesty, Buz, this isn't that hard. Life didn't "evolve the ability to reproduce"; chemical structures that could self-replicate evolved life.There's a whole science of this stuff, Buz. You've been talking about these things for how long, now? Seven years?At any point are you going to actually learn the science you need to talk about the science? Just curious.The first living things would not have been cells, and it's absurd to say that a bacteria like E. coli is "primitive." E. coli is the result of millions of years of evolution and has a number of highly advanced features. The first living things would not have been anything at all like E. coli. E. coli is not even close to being the "minimal organism."Your link even says that. Did you read it? Frequently I've gotten the impression that you don't understand half of what you read.

link segment writes: Most likely, it will be many years before research can completely answer any of the three questions mentioned here. Given that DNA was not discovered until the 1950s, the research on this complicated molecule is still in its infancy, and we have much to learn. ...........Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information?
Question 2: How Can Evolution Be So Quick?-
Question 3: Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?

Ringo writes:No. As people have been trying to tell you, there is no fine line between "almost life" and life.

Jar writes:That's about the most important thing you can learn Buz, even if ID was true it explains NOTHING. It leaves us as ignorant about how anything happened as we were before.