|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: You need to address the rest of my message that explained why Marshall's descriptive text was also wildly misleading. But I only presented it as a random mutation generator. I could not erase the line at the bottom of the frame that says, " Do your own Darwinian Evolution experiments with the Random Mutation Generator -" I was looking for an online random mutation generator and found this one and was using it as random mutations not being able to help in the formation of usable information. After looking at the site I will have to spend some time reading it after I get back from vacation to see what he has to say about information. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi DrJones,
DrJones writes: Of course not, and that is obviously not what I said. If everybody today does not posess the same Intelligence doesn't it stand to reason that those people of 100 years ago didn't posess the same Intelligence of each other or the same Intelligence of people today? I know we have knowledge today that they did not have. But someone had to come up with that knowledge. Intelligence is the ability and capacity to obtain knowledge even if we have to discover it. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes: They did. It just took rather longer than you seem to think is reasonable. Are you saying the flat earthers were just as Intelligent as we are but they just had not discovered the information thereby gaining the knowledge we have 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi crashfrog,
crashfrog writes: Could you elaborate on how and when that "discovery" was made? I did say if I remembered correctly it was only 55 years ago that I studied those things. But a quick search produced information that Sir William Osler in the 1892 edition his Principles and Practice of Medicine was still supporting bloodletting. Information that does not support the beliefs of the masses gets changed or deleted over time. I think we call that evolution.
crashfrog writes: It's on par with your inability to perform basic multiplication. I will go look for your corrections of my multiplication.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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are you saying the flat earthers were just as Intelligent as we are but they just had not discovered the information thereby gaining the knowledge we have today?
Yes. And Native Americans too. And Pygmies. And Aborigines. (And "Intelligent" does not need caps.) Got a problem with that? Better present some evidence to the contrary then. Edited by Coyote, : spacing Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But a quick search produced information that Sir William Osler in the 1892 edition his Principles and Practice of Medicine was still supporting bloodletting. As an aside, were you aware that phlebotomy is still the standard medical treatment for hemochromatosis?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 495 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
If you do why not try this random mutation generator here. It is a barrel of fun. You can mutate at the rate of one mutation at the time or more. Thanks for the link, as you said it was a barrel of fun. I had a go with the default sentence and eventually came up with the result "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy log". What do you know - new information! I quite liked this new sentence so I tried the random generator on this and eventually got the sentence "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy leg", even more new information. I showed this to my friend, who not only has a bad leg, but is also severly cynophobic. He loved the new sentence almost as much as he hated the first sentence and said that he would rather read this one a million times over than read the original. Not sure what he was getting at, but interesting all the same. To get back on topic. Now that I have this new sentence created from random inputs, how do I distinguish it from an intelligently designed one? Edited by Boof, : Tried to connect to topic. Edited by Boof, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 244 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
quote: Please explain how that would be possible. Time is relative and dependant on space.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: No, just one copy. (Some cells have no copies at all.) I agree with the statement some cells have no copies. Red blood cells, sperm and eggs come to mind. But I thought when the DNA duplicated the double helix unwound itself and each strand became a template for the formation of a matching strand to form another double helix. If each strand was a template for a copy of the DNA information would not each strand of the double helix have to have a copy of the DNA information? I need some help here.
crashfrog writes: Not at all. DNA can often be viewed with the naked eye: Why do I get the feeling the picture contains information that is magnified? If the smallest thing you can see with your naked eyes is a human egg, and it is necessary to use a light microscope to see a human cell which contains the DNA. How would it be possible to see the DNA contained in that cell with the naked eye? Source crashfrog writes: You've been corrected, already. The data necessary to store a human genome is 750 megabytes, which would fit on a CD. Certainly it's a lot smaller than a CD, I don't know anybody who would dispute that, but 3 billion base pairs in two-bit encoding is only 750 megabytes or so, no matter how you do the math. In the post you are replying to I used 750 megabytes per cell. Then I uses the storage space of a 1 TB hard drive but used the numbers of a 2 TB hard drive. They both have the same specifications so I need to correct the size of human DNA to correspon to the larger capacity of the hard drive. It would take less than 2668 strands of DNA to hold as many megabytes of information as the 2 TB hard drive. That 2668 strands of DNA would be smaller than 20 of the largest human cells which if found in the spinal cord. Am I to assume everything else you did not comment on was correct?
crashfrog writes: Would I be correct in pointing out that a one-terabyte hard drive is a lot smaller than a human body? You would be correct. A man that weighs 200 lbs would be 125 times larger than the hard drive by weight. In comparison the 730283718920 nanogram hard drive would be273,719,534 times larger than the 2668 nanograms of DNA by weight to hold the same amount of megabytes You can correct my math any place it is necessary. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
"CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY" is now in the topic title - Ignore at your own peril.
Please, only ONE final statement/closing comment message PER MEMBER. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tiny little minor tweak.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Guys and Gals,
It has been fun and educational. When I get back off vacation the last of the month I will propose a topic on information in a real debate format as it is fasinating. Don't get too lonely without me now. 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." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
NM. Saw the Moose.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
When does design become intelligent?
Based on 600+ posts we can conclude that design becomes intelligent whenever creationists say it does. No evidence needed, just the claim is enough to prove the case. Or reinforce it. For creationists anyway. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 495 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined:
|
Well now I guess I’ll never know whether ICANT agrees that the random sentence mutation program he linked to can actually produce new information or not. Might save that question for a new thread when he returns from holiday.
Anyway this proved to be a more thought-provoking thread than I had imagined after reading the OP ICDESIGN asked:
When does design become intelligent? Crashfrog claims the eye would be an intelligent design if the Retina face the light-sensing layer out towards the front, where the light comes in; not backwards, towards the inside of the scull, with two layers of light-insensitive cells between the iris and the incoming light. I have a solid rebuttal to that argument at what point does design become intelligent? As with everything it often comes down to definitions. To my way of thinking design implies a process of planning for a particular outcome. Thus to me anything that is truly designed requires an intelligence. The level of intelligence may vary, many things are poorly designed
The antenna example did throw me a little, but on reading the link provided by Subbie it seems that the antenna was produced through a process of engineered evolution via a random mutation process and artificial selection rather than what I have defined as design. Maybe I just need to rethink my definition of design? Of course the real question for creationists is how can we discern that which is designed from that which isn’t? I think Buzsaw has given the best answer so far:
Anything that is designed by an intelligent agent is intelligently designed. Equally accurate as it is useless
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined:
|
In my closing statement I would like to say this; If your end product needed an intelligent designer anywhere in the process to produce said product, then you have not simulated evolution. Anything done on a computer couldn't have happened without an intelligent designer.
One thing everybody seems to be overlooking is this; Now that you have the design of the antenna, or whatever your design happens to be, who is going to build it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024