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

No. You're told that because we see the processes of natural selection and randim mutation produce arbitrary complexity, they can be the explanation for how all living things could be descended from a single Last Universal Common Ancestor. Were they? Observation of natural selection and random mutation offers no support for that hypothesis. To support that hypothesis, we turn to genetic and fossil evidence, which is overwhelming. Sure you can. But right now we're talking about your contention that because some information comes from minds, all of it must come from minds. Don't change the subject.

And it's an observed fact that information is a prerequisite for the production of minds.Information first!

This is well in excess of the amount of genetic information in any human cell. How are you doing this math? How do you justify a conversion between cell mass and data size?The entire human genome is only 3,000 mbp (or 3 gbp.) One megabasepair isn't the equivalent of one megabyte; a byte is eight bits but you need only two bits to specify a nucleotide base, because there are only four. (2 to the power of 2.) No, we don't. You're just making things up, now. 3 billion base pairs can be represented by two bits each, since there are only four bases. That adds up to less than 750 megabytes, a footprint smaller than any hard drive produced since 1994. You're right that natural selection and random mutation is a more effective way to produce information and design than intelligence.

All those cells would have the same information, though. Remember that the cells in your body are clones of each other.Again the entire human genome is no more than 750 megabytes and can be downloaded in the space of seconds.

Yes, but it doesn't do "Darwinian Evolution experiments" like he claims, does it, because it cannot perform meaningful selection. That's why it's misleading. Random text substitution is not an analog for evolution.You need to address the rest of my message that explained why Marshall's descriptive text was also wildly misleading.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Hi DrJones, Do you mean to tell me we have not evolved above the earliest mankind known to exist. They just didn't have the knowledge we do. Is that what you are saying.I thought the IQ of humans had increased in the last 50 years.I do know that intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing.Intelligence is the ability and capacity to learn information which is knowledge.Does everybody posess the same Intelligence?If so why do we have college graduates that can not speak in a complete sentence?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."

Of course we've evolved over the the earliest mankind, but thats not what we were talking about. You mentioned humans of 100 years ago, don't try to shift the goalposts now. It might have. I'd like to see some evidence of this and if the increase was actually of a significant amount. Of course not, and that is obviously not what I said.

---

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 Huntard, If I remember correctly they did not stop bleeding people until 1925 when it was discovered that the life of the flesh was in the blood. If they had the Intelligence of humans today why did they not gain the knowledge and create the means? I am not confusing intelligence and knowledge.Intelligence is the ability and capability of an individual to acquire knowledge which is information.All minds are not capable of the same things nor do they have the same capability. You did quote Dr Adequate when you made the statement "we did it better than him" and added than him.His source says that it is not possible yet to even do what the claims are that is made.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, ICANT. They did. It just took rather longer than you seem to think is reasonable.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Could you elaborate on how and when that "discovery" was made?The ignorance you have about the history and process of science really beggars belief. It's on par with your inability to perform basic multiplication.

That's why I mentioned earlier that it seems demeaning to ascribe intelligence to a god. Your god can "acquire knowledge"? Meaning he isn't omniscient? Omniscience and intelligence would seem to be mutually exclusive.

---

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

Nice bible reference there, you think nobody before 1925 knew that if someone bleeds alot, they gonna die? Do you think nobody knoew before the bible was written? Because knowledge is a cumulative process, not an instant one. You quite clearly are. No. Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving. (from wiki). The measure of the capability of the person to do this is called intelligence, and it has nothing to do with what that person knows or is capable of doing, even if he did know. For instance, I could have the knowledge to build a nuclear reactor, but were I stuck in the stone age, I don't think I could ever get one built. It is my capability that is preventing me from building the nuclear reactor, not my knowledge or intelligence. That's why I never claimed they were. No it doesn't. it quite clearly shows that those scientists succeeded in putting one bit of information on 20 atoms, wheresas your intelligent designer needs 64 to store two. Now, some of that math you love so much:64 / 2 = 32 (this is the amount of atoms your designer needed to store one bit of information)32 - 20 = 12 (this is the amount of atoms we did it fewer in)Clearly, by your own admission, we are more intelligent than your designer, since we did it way more efficiently than him.

Hi Ringo, Where Have I ever claimed to understand anything that was not written in the Bible?I have claimed the sources I provided states there is information contained in DNA.They also state that information is transfered from inside the nucelus of the cell by mRNA to the ribsome outside the nucelus to create the protein needed.They also state that the information contained in the DNA contains the complete blueprint for the living being it resides in.Now if you want to refute what they say don't expect me to argue the point with you. Which is what you are trying to get me to do.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."

Can you build a super computer, today?Why do you lack an infinite amount of knowledge, today?You have the means, the access to information, people willing to teach you, yet you bask in your ignorance and point fingers at others for not having certain knowledge on things that they just simply couldn't have known?You CAN know, so why do you remain ignorant on various subjects?I'm sure that humans who lived 100,000 years ago had all the knowledge and intelligence their environment required for them to survive, why? because we're here today. However, today's human would probably have not survived given the same environment.By today's standards, they weren't so knowledgable, by their standards in those days, we know useless information and lack all the survival skills they did. What good is all the knowledge of today if you'd be dead in a week from some environmental hazard?Who was truly more intelligent? Genetics and environment determine intelligence, for the most part.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

You claimed that I disagreed with your sources. How could you make that claim if you didn't understand your sources? And I explained to you what that means. I explained that it's all a mechanical process and that's what they said. You are the only one who's claiming that DNA is somehow "special" and doesn't work like other molecules, that it requires intelligence. There you go again, being dishonest. I have told you more than once that I don't want to refute what your sources say. I agree with them 100% because - here it is again - I learned everything I know from them. In one breath you deny claiming to understand them and in the next breath you claim that I disagree with them. You can't have it both ways.I am definitely not trying to get you to argue any point. I know very well, and anybody reading this thread knows very well that you have no point to argue. All you have is bald assertions and insults.I am trying to help you understand at least one or two basic points. I want you to think about what the "information" on DNA looks like.

---

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