Summations Only

I disagree. What SETI looks for is signals that are unlikely to have a natural origin with the assumption that we know nature pretty well. The inference is that all such signals are artificial. Artificial signals, for whatever purpose, are of interest. Your purpose, intent stuff is simply wrong and irrelevant.As for dolphins, marine biologist already know that dolphin signals are made by dolphins, so the analysis is completely different. And we already know that dolphins are intelligent. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

First, your summary does not match my position, which is that I can determine that a laser flash is artificial despite the lack of any information or knowledge about the information it contains.To answer your question, intent requires an intelligence capable of holding an idea, so in a sense what you are posing a tautology. Intent is a mental state, hence intent requires a mind. But your question does not get at the point in dispute between us.It is important to distinguish between function, and purpose or intent. Function does not imply intelligence, it implies only a use and a suitability or facility for that use. When we observe antlers on a deer, we can describe one or more function that those antlers perform. When we discuss lungs on a sea animal, we can talk about how that feature serves the animal in a particular niche. Those are functions we can observe, but are they intent or purpose? Well no. In order to make the leap from function to intent we have to postulate an intender who gave the animals those features.So does order or function imply intelligence or intent? No and that is the real issue of contention. If you talk about intent associated with DNA, you are actually asserting the result that you of which you are trying to convince me. If you want to make that a definition, then so be it. But the concept of specified information is not necessary to make the determination that that a wrench is not a natural object. We can determine that the object is not natural simply by noting features that cannot arise from nature or that are similar to those that we know before hand are man-made. We can do that independently of knowing what the features even do. I submit that to be the process for recognizing that an artifact is made by humans.And it is that process that we cannot perform for biological systems. Because we do not know of features which cannot appear in nature. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, but we don't have any evidence of specific intent for any biological organism (other than that of the organism itself). If we had any real such evidence, the debate over whether there was a Specific Intender would be over.Instead you observe function in unintelligent biological systems and label that function as programmed intent. Making that labeling is nothing less or more than asserting the conclusion. I'm going to presume you mean a multi-celled something. There is plenty of 'nearly direct' evidence that viruses and bacteria evolve.And you would still be wrong. What you are describing is what it would take to prove common descent to you and not what's needed to reach an accurate scientific conclusion. Your argument is of exactly the same form that the Tobacco institute used to use. "Nobody has actually seen a lung cell mutate due to inhaled cigarette smoke." The statement was true, but completely irrelevant.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, that's wrong.Is the sun's core hot? Does the process of nuclear fusion operate in the sun?What is the electron configuration for aluminum atoms?The above are all examples of scientific questions for which essentially all, if not entirely all of the evidence is indirect.Did OJ murder Nicole? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.