Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

The existence of the human mind is probably best explained by "magic" as science can only accept it with the pithy assumption 'cogito ergo sum'.

How does magic "accept it"?And is that the well explained "magic of the gaps" or some new kind of unexplained magic?

"Cogito ergo sum" is from philosophy, not from science. There are scientists involved with investigations of the human mind (they are usually called "cognitive scientists"), and most of them are critical of Descartes's "cogito."

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

So, since you haven't studied neurobiology, you assume that that entire field of medicine is actually a snippet from philosophy?AND, you think it's more rational to assume that magical elf wizards create brains in a magic brain factor then use inviso-rays to teleport them into heads.That's your "concept" of _BEST_ explanation for something?You shouldn't be allow to even use a computer, let alone post to the forums.

Your confusion of 'mind' and 'brain' indicates you are lacking in one or the other.

If I put a bullet in your brain, how does your mind fare?There is no "mind" without the brain.

Your confusion of science and philosophy indicated that you understood neither, but hey, who needs actual knowledge when you can just spray nonsense?The mind is an abstract entity we use to label the sum of the physical and chemical interactions within the brain. The two are inextricably linked, so much so that the terms are relatively interchangeable unless you want to use both ideas in the same paragraph.Further, magic does not explain the mind in any way at all. It just posits a "therefore this" without doing the groundwork and actually explaining the phenomenon at all.
So unless you've done some amazing breakthrough and can successfully explain, well, basically how the entire brain works better than leading neurobiologists and psychologists, please do share your work. I for one will listen attentively right up to the point where you fail.

quote:

---

Re: evidence against ID requires limits set on the designer
The existence of the human mind is probably best explained by "magic" as science can only accept it with the pithy assumption 'cogito ergo sum'.

---

What a silly and conceited little statement. Unless you know the "science" behind the mind, you cant speak to this.And as you've been informed, Descartes' comment is purely philosophical. Science has come a loooong way since then. What we know now, which is nowhere NEAR a complete understanding, would have blown Descartes' mind. Not that his argument wouldnt still have grounds, but still.

I'm reading many posts on the idea of HGT. I'm not a staunch intellectual on horizontal gene transfer but i'm wondering how this came to be? Is the idea of HGT, the hereditary genetical structures being present in one bacteria/celluar body being transferred to another? A post stated this can be sexual and/or asexual. So i'm assuming this is a process in which organisms such as bacteria can multiply.In this case, does it supply evidence for the possibility of an intelligent designer. Obviously these modes have to be programmed prior to accepting and giving genetic material.On the other hand this also sounds like co-option where different genetic material are shared amongst celluar bodies, and through these shared genetic material the parts most likely to survive would in turn evolve. Dr. Behe in his study of irreducible complexity strikes down the process, but I wanted to see what are other biological evolutionary processes which erode the intelligent design concept of HGT and/or irreducible complexity.