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

Hi Bolder-dash, Yeah! I hate people who make up stories like that! Turtles turned into tigers? Preposterous! People who make up stories like that must be real jackasses.Except...I can't think of anyone who seriously claims that tigers are descended from turtles. Not a one. Probably because tigers aren't descended from turtles.Nor can I recall anyone claiming that monkeys are descended from tigers. No-one claims that. It would be pretty stupid; monkeys aren't descended from tigers.Neither was Richard Feynman descended from any living species of monkey. Something very much like a monkey perhaps... but not really a monkey per se. Certainly not a tiger, or a turtle.So... I guess you must have made those up yourself. Dontcha just hate it when people go and make up just-so-stories?

---

In all seriousness, stuff like this undermines your credibility. It's all very well to disagree with the scientific consensus. That is your right. What really isn't acceptable though is for you to disagree with that consensus without even understanding what the scientists are actually saying. Your expressions of incredulity come across as pathetic when you so plainly demonstrate your lack of understanding of claims being made. If you insist on churning out such obvious strawmen, all you will ever manage to do is to waste your time tilting at windmills.Why not learn what biologists are actually saying? Then, if you're still not happy, you can argue with the real Theory of Evolution. Just a thought.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Huntard, Well if you want to be like that about it, Feynman was a kind of highly derived fish. Personally, I'm not too fussy about the distinction between "descended from monkeys" and "descended from a monkey-like ancestor". Whatever the last common ancestor of humans and monkeys was like, it would have been sufficiently monkey-like that, were it in a modern zoo, it would be kept in the Monkey House. "Descended from monkeys" is an over-simplification certainly, but it's hardly the worst thing I've ever heard a creationist say.We're just not descended from turtles is all. Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

BD, You can be assured that there is. You can find it by looking in books, something that might account for your lack of familiarity with it. I think you'll find a 100% consensus that we are not descended from turtles. If you want to highlight "gratuitous nonsense", you couldn't hope to find a more perfect example than that.To reiterate, no evolutionist thinks we're descended from bloody turtles. That you characterise us as doing so is laughable. You only make yourself look foolish and ignorant when you attack such ludicrous strawmen. I know that it says we're not descended from turtles. That's just fucking stupid.You are welcome to believe what you like. You can claim anything you like as your opinion, that's your right. But when you represent the opinions of others, you should do so accurately. Misrepresenting other people's claims comes across as either ignorant or dishonest. It makes your wider arguments look silly when you behave this way. Well, not that we're descended from turtles that's for sure. You made that bit up, remember? Remember when you just made that up and typed it? Sure you do...Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

When you go and get that book - y'know, the one with the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent - try to make sure it's in a language you actually understand. That would help. By the evidence you've presented do far, I'm guessing that wouldn't be English. Right, I wouldn't make that up. Because that would be silly. We're no more descended form flecks of silicon than we are from turtles. In fact, if anything, the sand comment is even dumber and more ignorant than the silly turtle comments.Luckily for me though, I have no need to make anything up. You are doing a good enough job at making up silly gibberish to keep us going for months. "Beliefs". Not "believes". Is English your native language? Perhaps you might be better off discussing this topic in a dialect you can comprehend. Although I'm not sure what that would be...Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Okay BD, three messages condensed into one reply here. I'll leave the best for last. Fair enough. I won't give you a hard time over it then. I do wonder though if your grasp of English might not be contributing to your apparent lack of understanding here. You have been asked to show us where Dawkins says any such thing. Of course you can't, because he hasn't.You were the one who claimed that evolutionists think we are descended "from flecks of sand ". That is a misrepresentation, or more charitably, a misapprehension. Whatever it is, it's wrong. No-one thinks that. We're composed of many elements, but principally carbon. Obviously. And when I say obviously, I mean painfully, painfully obviously. As in the phrase "carbon-based life". I think Dr A has already dealt with this, but I meant what I said. First, it's not about proof. No-one can ever prove anything about the origin of life beyond all possible doubt. Besides, science doesn't operate that way. Science uses evidence, not proof; the two concepts are quite distinct.Also, I have to say that materialistic explanations have a pretty good track record. After all, every single phenomenon that is currently understood has a material explanation. Strange that you should be so quick to give up on any materialistic explanation for abiogenesis. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that because intelligence exists, it must have been created by intelligence? That no more follows than claiming that something that is pink must have been created by something pink. That is not what you said. You mentioned; which is something quite different.Turtles, tigers, monkeys and Richard Feynman sharing a common ancestor, yes.Richard Feynman is descended from monkeys, which are descended from tigers, which are descended from turtles, no. No, no, no, no, no.This is what I'm trying to get at here; when you characterise the position taken by your evolutionist opponents, please try and get it right. Your repeated failure to manage this both insults others and undermines your own credibility. No, I didn't say that. I said that your turtles-tigers-monkeys-humans scenario was "fucking stupid", which it most certainly is. Again, that's not what I said. I said that you could find the real Theory of Evolution (as opposed to your insipid strawman version of it) in books. Which you can. Any high-school biology text for example. Or I heartily recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. If you are genuinely interested in hearing what your evo opponents really think that is. I really don't think you understand what I said. I said that the theory can be found, not the evidence for its reality. Yes, well, that's Skitt's Law for you. There is a difference between a misspelling and a typo though. Again, Dawkins has never said that we are descended from silicon or sand or any such thing. You just pulled that one out of nowhere.But if "that's what he says!", I guess you'll be able to show us where he says it, right? Of course again, you won't be able to show us that, because it's nonsense, but I am curious to see you try...Oh and, like I said... best for last... Nice work there BD, very nice. Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi BD, still letting yor lack of understanding hang out for us all to see huh? Your continued personal abuse aside, you have failed to comprehend what is being said here. For starters, these considerations are speculation, they are not held as gospel. Indeed they are rather outdated. That is why the only reference to them that you can find in Dawkins is from his older work. You do understand the difference between discussing an idea and believing it don't you?

quote:

---

If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines.

---

quote:

---

If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.

---

We are not descended from these silicates. Even if the hypothesis is true, which is widely doubted these days, we are descended from the organic chemistry that piggy-backed onto them. Big difference.Also, sand is not clay. You mentioned sand. This is about clay. Sand is made of grains that are far too large for the sort of thing you're talking about here.So all round... triple fail. Nice try though. It doesn't matter how widely read one is. What matters is understanding. This is not what you originally said. It is a big improvement though. Congratulations on finally writing something that is within a stone's throw of what evolutionists actually think. Any time you feel like growing up and engaging in an adult conversation, you just let us know BD. Bluejay has repeatedly tried to draw you into a more meaningful discussion, but you have rebuffed him. Don't pretend that you crave meaningful discussion when you repeatedly reject it in favour of childish name-calling. This is of course utter nonsense. The tree of life must be compatible with both the fossil record and with the genetic evidence. Any version that doesn't fit those (like your turtles/tigers bit) can be considered falsified. If you were to actually read that book, you would find plenty of empirical evidence discussed therein, as you would do in any high school biology textbook. Your unwillingness to look is not my problem.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

*sigh* No. It shows that you have failed, yet again, to understand what is being said. Let's take another look at your original statement; Pointing out that no-one is claiming to have a complete accounting of abiogenesis is completely relevant in this context. That is your misunderstanding. I am not to blame if you cannot tell the difference between discussing a hypothesis and claiming absolute knowledge.Of course, I can imagine why you might be confused. In creationist circles, and in much religious discourse in general, claims to certain and absolute knowledge are the usual way of doing things. Science doesn't work like that. The Selfish Gene is not the "Gospel of Dawkins". The reader is not expected to take every last idea that he mentions as fact.Further, I fail to see why I should be expected to provide an accounting for outdated ideas which I do not believe. The Cairns-Smith hypothesis is outdated because we have models for organic chemical replicators that do not require silicates in this way. Why on Earth should I be expected to provide exacting proof for something that I do not believe and have never supported? I am content to let people draw their own conclusions there.The simple fact is that your original statement was utterly wrong. You mentioned sand. The quotes you cited do not mention sand. Your original statement implies that we originated from sand. Even if we assume that you meant clay and not sand, you would still be wrong. The hypothesis is that organic chemistry used inorganic silicate replicators as a kind of scaffold upon which to develop. That doesn't mean we are descended from them. Rather it means that we are descended from the organic chemistry that grew on them. The organic chemistry represents the organism in Cairns-Smith's scenario, not the silicates. You are correct. I do not possess the character of someone who would apologise despite not being in error. Strangely, I do not consider this a character flaw. Actually, I no longer believe that you are lying. I think that you have merely failed to understand what is being said for one reason or another. You replied to Dr A like this; The very quotes that you cited demonstrate that you were mistaken. Dawkins does not say that we are descended from silicon. He discusses the hypothesis that the first organic replicators used silicate replicators as a medium. He does not say that he considers it fact, he merely floats the idea as an interesting possibility, as we can see here; That doesn't sound like a statement of fact to me. It sounds like what it is, a discussion of a potentially interesting hypothesis. "Clay" and "sand" are not synonyms. They are not the same thing.Clay - WikipediaSand - WikipediaFeel free to educate yourself. The short version is that sand is composed of far larger grains than clay. Oh bless! Are you really naive enough to imagine that simply because two substances are composed of the same elements, that they must be identical? Do you think that coal is the same as diamond? If so, I have some beautiful and valuable coal rings you might be interested in... Given that you think this, I can only conclude that you have failed to grasp just how insulting your behaviour has been in this thread. Right from your first message, you set up various insane strawman versions of the ToE and accused us of believing them. That is insulting. It pisses people off when you do that.Imagine that I said "Well of course you are a Christian, so you are stupid enough to believe that Jesus was a magic space-alien from the future who could shoot laser beams out of his bum hole." . Wouldn't you be annoyed that I was misrepresenting your beliefs? Wouldn't you be annoyed that I was trying to make you look so stupid? Because that is exactly what you have been doing in this thread, right from the start.Again, if you are going to characterise other peoples beliefs, you should do so accurately or not at all. Misrepresenting others is a form of insult. Remember that when you look back at this thread.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod