too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Hi, IC. Glad to see that you've decided to stay with us.

quote:

---

I am just dying
to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer
and 2. is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is
the only logical explanation.

---

I dunno. Me, I'm dying to know how a "design" can be so complex as to rule out selection of best designs among naturally occurring variations over a long period of time.I'm also dying to find out who, exactly, is saying, "an accident is the only logical explanation."-

quote:

---

Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!!

---

That's interesting. This "real world" you come from...do you live there, or does it treat you on an out-patient basis?Edited by Chiroptera, : Added "over a long period of time."

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

I love your sense of humor Chiroptera, I really do- I bet you are a blast to be around.

---

It all depends on the company I keep.-

quote:

---

Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life?

---

No. Selection is important, too. Here is a brief description of the theory of evolution that I wrote; I'd make some changes if I were to rewrite it today, but it gives the basic idea of what evolution is all about.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%
with its claims.

---

Well, that's a problem, isn't it, IC? How can you possibly determine that evolution is wrong if you don't know anything about it? More importantly, how do you think you can argue against people who do know something about it?-

quote:

---

I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God.

---

Are you saying that your mind is made up? And that you have no desire to learn more about the theory of evolution? If so, then what is your purpose in discussing it?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Dr. Jones, your new avatar is hilarious.

quote:

---

Well I want to hear from other people.

---

Well, you certainly did hear from meBut I guess I'm not worth responding to, either. Hrmph!

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

I just think ... the people that study it have been brainwashed.

---

I have a question for you, ICPURPLEELEPHANTS.which is more reasonable: that for the last century and a half the thousands of well educated people who have studied biology day in and day out for their entire lives have been brainwashed,or that you, who have so far not shown that you understand the slightest bit about biology, are brainwashed?I know where I'll be betting my money.Edited by Chiroptera, : darn tags

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Were his emails like this?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

Honestly, this is laughable to me.

---

Sure. You've already stated that. But the argument of personal incredulity is an acknowledged fallacy.-

quote:

---

next

---

That's more properly rendered NEXT

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Here are two sequences of heads and tails:1. TTTHHHTTHHTHHTT2. THHTTHTTHTHHHTTOne of sequences I made by following a deliberate pattern (and, in fact, I can tell you what the pattern is). The other I produced by tossing a real penny a bunch of times.Which one is the designed sequence, and which one is the randomly created one?Just in case this example is relevant to what people are talking about.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Karl, is this you?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hi, anastasia.Oldtimers will know who I am talking about. Karl Crawford was (and is...he's recently popped up again at NAiG as "Curious George") an especially dimwitted creationist poster on evolution/creationism debate forums. He doesn't even understand basic scientific principles and is very unamenable to explanation on even these basic matters -- which is what makes him amusing.Karl's favorite phrase is "evo-babbler" and ending messages with NEXTwhich is why IC reminded me of him.Now, I don't actually think IC is Karl. For one thing, Karl mostly cuts'n'pastes the exact same messages again and again. Also, Karl's messages are full of caustic insults, far more risible than IC's. (Of course, when Curious George first showed up on NAiG, he was extremely polite -- but the old instincts couldn't be suppressed for long, and good ol' Karl finally manifested himself.)Anyway, this is all off-topic -- just wanted to explain the "in-joke".

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

Prove to me how you can generate design
with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.

---

Crashfrog did. That radio is the result of natural (that is, not consciously produced by a sentient being) selection and random mutation. The programmer simply set up a situation where random processes will create variation, and a mechanism by which, without conscious intervention, some variants will be selected over others.Now by arguing that the particular situation was originally implemented by a human being, you are moving the goal posts. It has now been demonstrated that a selection process acting on random variations can create complex designs.How this was set up is immaterial. In the real biological world we see new variations come about randomly (genetic mutations). We also observe, with our own eyes, a selection mechanism, namely that some variants are not as able to leave behind surviving offspring.So, geneticists have demonstrated that new variants can arise. Population biologists have demonstrated that there is a selection mechanism. And crashfrog's source has demonstrated that a source of new variation plus a selection mechanism can produce "complex designs".So whether or not natural selection on naturally occurring random mutations can produce "complex designs" is no longer a question; the question is whether natural selection on random mutations did produce the "complex designs" that we see around us.Considering that the ample amount of evidence that the "complex designs" came about by the evolution of species, something must have caused that evolution. It has been demonstrated that a selection mechanism acting on randomly occurring variations can produce "complex designs"; we see that natural selection is an existing selection mechanism, and we see that genetic mutation is an existing source of random variation; and there is no other mechanims known to cause the evolution of the species for which so much evidence exists. To me, the case is pretty much decided.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This thread began as a response to comments made by several people, one of whom was myself. The comment attributed to me was:

quote:

---

The human body is far too complex to have been designed by a sentient entity

---

Let me show by example by what I meant by this, since we are talking about how genetic algorithms show the power of mechanistic selection on randomly appearing variations.Here is a website about using the evolutionary process to "design" antennas. Here are pictures of two antennas designed by this process: (Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting.)Note how "complicated" these two anntenae look. In fact, they certainly don't look to me like the products of conscious design -- if I didn't know better, I would say that these wires were just bent at random angles and were just junk. Yet, they are very good, functioning antenna, performing the functions for which they were designed better than consciously designed antennae.To me, this is what a cell looks like. A cell certainly performs a certain function well -- namely, utilizing an external energy source in order to reproduce itself. But the mechanisms within a cell look to me like these antennae: a complete mess, a jumble of junk put together. To me, it is remarkable that something so ugly and messy (clearly I am no biochemist!) could function so well. In other words, cells look to me like they were designed like these antennae, by a process of selecting the best "performers" among a varying population.So this is what I meant by my response to IC. IC claimed to see the results of conscious design; me, I see the results of natural selection.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

I'm done here.

---

For how long this time?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

The topic is whether or not life shows signs of being designed by a conscious entity. One way of doing this is to do the following:(1) Give a rigorous, non-ambiguous, measurable way of determining whether something is or is not designed.(2) Show that life (or some feature of it) has the quality of being designed according to definition (1).(3) Show that something can only possess the quality of being designed according to definition (1) through the intervention of a conscious entity.You have failed to do this. To be more specific, your attempt at (1) consists of: Gosh, it sure looks designed to me! And your attempt at (3) consists of: Gosh, I can't imagine how this could happen without a designer!Sorry, but the whole problem with your approach is that it is a well-known fallacy called the appeal to ignorance. You set up your own personal criteria (namely, your own failure to understand the processes involved) for determining when you think it's obvious that something must be the product of design and then complain when the rest of us are not impressed with your poor reasoning.What you believe is up to you, of course. You can even believe that something is so obvious that the rest of us are dolts for not seeing it. But the rest of the world is going to just walk around you while you stand raving on the street corner.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine