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

Hi Dr, It was created by an information engineer who is involved in Scientific Advertising. That creates the adds you see on Google in the right hand column. The ones that move up by themselves if they are clicked on by visitors. So he knows a little about information.It was not designed to fool anyone.It was designed to see if random mutations could create benifical information.As you can see random mutations can not do anything but cause information to be degraded and with enough mutations destroy it.In DNA we have information.We are told this DNA information has mutations.Because of the internal correction in DNA 1 mutation in 1 billion replacations gets through. That means that it would take some time to mess up or improve the information in human DNA.As the random mutation generator you tried proved that information can not be improved by random mutations.How do you propose that the DNA information could be improved
to change the product produced. Computers don't store information.They store information on some kind of media.The Central Processing Unit in a computer processies numeric data, meaning information entered in binary form, and the execution of instructions stored in memory.The CPU can make no decisions it only processes information.It does not create information only processes it and produces the results of that processing. A computer program does not compute information.A computer program provides information that is processed by a CPU that produces information according to the information entered. The CPU does not add or substract any information it only computes.The only intelligent designers involved is the ones who created the machine and its parts, and the programers who wrote the program. But my program I downloaded is programed that when specific results are produced in the random running program appears they are to be ignored and they do not compute, and are not displayed. Sounds like a program designed to reach a pre-determined outcome to me. So when a program produces results that you agree with it is producing what happens in the real world.When a program produces results that you disagree with it is not producing what happens in the real world.That sounds kind of bias to me. If you love random mutations why don't you accept the results?You do know selection only detrmines what survives don't you?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."

Hi Dr, From We do it better. provided by Dr Adequate. It doesn't seem like we can do that yet.A CD able to store 650 million megabytes.A DNA cell stores 1500 megabites.1 gram of human cells store 1,500,000,000,000 megabites of information.A CD weighs 15 grams, and could contain 650 million megabites of information.When compared to 15 grams of human cells which store 22,500,000,000,000 MB. That is 22 trillion 500 billion megabites of information.Something don't compute.Something there tells me the Intelligent Designer did a better job that our scientist hope they can accomplish sometime in the future.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."

Hi Huntard, If they were so intelligent 100 years ago why did they bleed people when they got sick to make them get well?If they were so intelligent 100 years ago why didn't they have supercomputers?I don't see the reasoning you are employing. What did we do better than the Intelligent Designer?Do you believe everything you read?Sometimes it would pay to do your own research.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."

Cause they didn't have the knowledge that we do now.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Hi ICANT,Your Perry Marshall link (HugeDomains.com) describes itself this way: Evolution is descent with modification (mutation) combined with natural selection. Marshall's mutation generator does only mutation, no selection, and selection is a key component of evolution. This is very misleading because he is telling people that evolution is just random change while completely ignoring the selection component.Marshall introduces selection on his explanation page (HugeDomains.com). His examples are fine except that his mutation is rate is far too high. For example, the mutation rate for bacteria is around one in a hundred million base pairs (analogous to Marshall's letters) per generation. By changing at least one letter in each generation Marshall is using a mutation rate that is about four million times greater than the rate for bacteria. Such a tremendous mutation is, of course, fatal, as Marshall clearly shows.If he applies his selection algorithm to more reasonable mutation rates and has more than one offspring per generation then he'll get much different results.--Percy

Hi Ringo, But DNA is the only molecule that I can find that science tells me contains coded information that has the blueprint for that living thing to reproduce itself. Who's being dishonest?I know you have been saying all along that all molecules contain information.I have not been able to find scientist who agree with you. Maybe you could source some that I can read what they say.Why would I need to explain why they wouldn't need information. If they need information then they need information.But only living things contain DNA which contains the information for that particular living thing to reproduce its self.Do water molecules need information to reproduce themselves?Do rocks need information to reproduce themselves?Do snowflakes need information to reproduce themselves?I don't think so. Why do I have to know what the information in DNA looks like?All I have to do is accept that science says there is information there that contains all the instructions that the particular living thing the DNA is in to reproduce its self.You can accept or believe whatever you desire.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."

The relevant part of the article was the part that I actually quoted. This describes an existing form of information storage which is more efficient than DNA; not a hypothetical one which isn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because intelligence and knowledge aren't the same thing.For example, you know about the existence of Neptune and Isaac Newton did not. Does that make you more intelligent than Newton?

Hi Percy, The random mutation generator that Perry has is simply a generator that mutates information.If you read my posts you noticed I said that a mutation in DNA only get through the correction process ever 1 billion processes.I do have a program that is supposed to mimic random mutations and natural selection.But the code is coded in a very biased format. One that would not take place in the wild.My point is if the information in DNA has to mutate for change in a species to take place, how can one byte or 60 bytes of information being changed cause a mutation that would make skin cells sensitive to light to cause an eye to begin to exist?And the biggest question I have is how did the DNA information in the first living life form that contained DNA begin to exist ?It is a known fact information is produced by a mind.Is there any other way information can begin to exist other than information being processed?

---

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

Hi DrJones, Does that mean they were as intelligent as we are today?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."

Why wouldn't it? They just had less knowledge, knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Because they didn't know what caused those deseases. And did they really still bleed people in 1910? Because they didn't have the means and the knowledge to build them. That's probably because you are confusing intelligence with knowledge and capability. Store information. Depends on where I read it, or what it is that is claimed. And you know I haven't because? By the way, this coming from you is rather funny, though I suspect the humour is lost on you.

Reproducing itself isn't relevant to the question. I'm asking about the information itself. Why would one molecule contain information and not another? Why do you fixate on reproducing itself when reproducing itself is only one of the things that a molecule does? Why wouldn't it need information for all of its other activities? Sure you have. The scientists that you quoted agree with me. Where do you think I learned about it? How about explaining in your own words what your sources are saying about information? Show us where they're saying that the structural information isn't in every molecule. If nothing else, explain why they don't need information to show us that you understand what's going on. So far, all you've done is make empty assertions that only DNA needs information. Explain why. What about the molecules involved in cell respiration? Why don't they need information? Why wouldn't water need information? That was the question. How does water "know" what it can do without information? How does it know to dissolve sodium chloride but to react with sodium and chlorine (in very different ways) when they're separate? How does a substance "know" that it should crystalize in a certain way when it settles out of solution? How does it know how to change its crystal structure under high temperatures and pressures? "I don't think so" isn't science. In a science thread, you need more than empty opinion. You need evidence and/or reasoned argument. So please explain, either with evidence or with reason, why snowflkes, rocks, etc. don't need information to do what they do but DNA does need information to do what it does. You're claiming that scientists can detect information on DNA but not on other molecules. If you understand your sources, you can surely understand how they detect information on DNA and how they can be sure it's not on other molecules.I'm claiming that you misunderstood the sources you quoted. I'm claiming that they agree with me, not you. I have explained why I think I'm right. Now you explain why you think you're right. Not in this topic you can't. In a science topic, you need evidence. Show us.Here's the question again. Suppose I show you, under high magnification, a section of a molecule:-O-Hand right beside it, a section of another molecule:-O-HAll you have to do is detect the information on one of them and tell me which one is DNA and which one is water. You claim your sources can do it and you claim you understand them. So explain. Show us the information.Edited by ringo, : Changed "relative" to "relevant".

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

And yet reading this page suggests that he is also a conceited halfwit. Then it is itself an instance of something that fulfills a function without having been designed to fulfill that function. But it is carefully designed not to mimic nature. No it didn't. By the occurrence of the sort of beneficial mutations that we can observe happening. Yes they do. You said it did. In those words. It was a quotation from you. But this is not true.Do bear in mind that one of us has a BSc in math and computer science and the other doesn't. You are not giving me any clear picture of what you're talking about.
"They do not compute"? That is not what I wrote. Perhaps we should work on your literacy problem before your math problem.When a computer simulates what is in the real world, then it is simulating what is in the real world.When a computer does not simulate what is in the real world, then it is not simulating what is in the real world.The program in question is carefully designed to not simulate nature and to throw no light on the theory of evolution. Of what?What the program shows is that if you have a population with a constant size of 1, and if selection does not operate, and if there is no criterion which one string of information is superior to another, then mutations of that information will not produce superior information (as not-measured according to the non-criterion which does not in fact exist).I could have told you that without the benefit of a computer program, because it is obvious. It also has nothing to do with nature, in which:(a) Populations sizes are larger than 1
(b) Selection operates
(c) Some genomes are better than others. That statement, though inaccurate, shows that you are at least beginning to grasp the concept of selection.At this rate in a few years you might actually understand the theory of evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Rhodopsin is the primary protein involved in light sensing, and the first to react to light stimulus in a chain that ultimately terminates with stimulation of nerve endings in the eye. You're asking how this protein evolved.Well, due to the presence and alternate function of rhodopsin-family proteins in microbes, we know that rhodopsin is a modified transmembrane pump which, in bacteria, responds to light by pumping chloride ions. In eukaryotes, this pump activity is disabled, and rhodopsin instead binds intracellularly to a signaling protein called a "G-protein."Converting a transmembrane pump to a transmembrane signal necessitates only a small change to the protein's cytosolic domain to allow for G-protein coupling. This would require changing little more than a few amino acid residues.In other words, converting a normal epidermal cell to a light-sensitive cell would require only a handful of point mutations. It is a known fact that some information is created by minds and some is not.