too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

But in that case, in order to know whether a "design" shows "intelligence", you have to know how the "goal" was achieved. (Thanks to snowcrystals.com.)You can "measure" the intelligence shown by this "design" as zero --- but only because you happen to know that snowflakes are produced by natural forces and not by an Intelligent Snow Fairy.To put it another way, before you can "measure" the "intelligence" of a "design", you first need to know whether it was in fact designed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Listen carefully.If we simulate the action of gravity on a computer, this does not mean that gravity takes place on a 'natural' computer.If we simulate the weather on a computer, this does not mean that the weather takes place on a 'natural' computer.If we simulate evolution on a computer, this does not mean that evolution takes place on a 'natural' computer.The models are based on a mapping between:(a) the data on the computer and world-states;
(b) the processing of the data and the laws of nature.The computer doesn't map to anything in nature any more than the desk it sits on does, or the fact that it's electrically powered (unlike gravity, evolution, and the weather).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Will you look at those two statements, GDR?Will you just look at them?In the first, you base your argument on the claim that "we" don't know the answer. In the second you admit that you are "singularly unqualified" to know the answer and that knowing the answer "ain't your field".So who are you to pronounce on what "we" know?It's not even the Argument From Ignorance --- it's the Argument From Personal Ignorance. What you don't know becomes what "we" don't know --- about a subject in which you are "singularly unqualified" in your own words.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out.You are offering as evidence for your hypothesis the facts in a subject which you are "not prepared to debate", in which you say you are "singularly unqualified", and which you say "ain't your field".And how did you come across these facts about anatomy? Why, because your opponents just mentioned them to you. Apparently, through sheer idiocy, they spoon-fed you the facts which, if analysed by someone such as yourself, who is "singularly unqualified", turn out to support Creationism.Oh come on!

Eat your hat.That argument has been put forward again and again: I call it the Argument From Undesign.My favorite version of the AFU was a spiel about how we couldn't have evolved from monkeys by natural selection because a prehensile tail would be useful for holding a coffee cup.

Good. It is indeed irrational to believe that the natural world "all happened by chance".This is why no-one believes this. Exactly the same amount of evidence that proves that there is no weather god who set in motion or is directing the lightning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But these really aren't synonyms.For example, water "finds its own level" without any thought. But it would be bizarre to say that it does so "by accident". After all, it does so every time, and we understand why.To take another example, a gas will evenly fill a container. The is caused, not by intelligent forthought, but by the random interactions of the molecules of gas, and yet it is no "accident" that the gas in a container is (neglecting gravity) the same pressure everywhere: rather, this is an almost inevitable statistical consequence of the random motion of the molecules. Sometimes "random chance", as creationists like to call it, has a crushing inevitability about it. And no thought is involved: gas molecules don't think.In the same way, the adaptation of organisms to their environment is not an "accident": it is the result of natural laws.

By reference to their knowledge of the history of evolution.For example, since we know that we descended from monkeys, it is evident that the coccyx is a vestigal tail. (Interestingly, it starts off as seperate vertebrae and fuses during embryological development.)Now, this might seem, to the naive, to lead us into a piece of circular reasoning: for if we rely on our knowledge of evolution to tell us what's vestigial, then how can we cite vestigial structures as evidence of evolution? The same question might be asked of the similar evidence from throwbacks and from "recaptiulation" in the developmental stage.The answer is that the our knowledge of the history of evolution (as gained by studying the fossil record, genetic record, comparative morphology, et cetera tells us which vestiges, throwbacks, and recapitulaed features we can see. In the womb, your caudal vertebrae fused to form a coccyx. In the same way, you grew, and then lost, a coat of fur. This is allowed by the theory of evolution, because all the other data suggest that you had a furry, tailed ancestor. But you do not have anything that looks like a vestigial wing, and you did not grow and shed a coat of feathers, because that isn't in your ancestry, and the theory of evolution prohibits it.Embryonic birds have foreclaws, unfused digits, and an semi-lunar carpal. Sometimes, birds grow rudimentary teeth. All this is permitted by the theory of evolution, because all the other data suggest that birds are descended from dinosaurs, which had those features. They don't have a carapace, 'cos all the other evidence says that they aren't descended from turtles or tortoises or suchlike, so the theory of evolution prohibits it.Recently, someone found a dolphin with hind flippers, just like the ones in the fossil record. The theory of evolution says that's fine. But a dolphin with a set of tentacles? Can't happen.Note that the theory of evolution doesn't say that these events have to occur (let us always remember that Haeckel was wrong) but it divides the possible from the impossible: the possible vestiges, throwbacks, and temporary well-developed features of the embryo have to fit with what all the other data tell us about evolution. Natural selection prevents a structure from developing now for use later (since producing and maintaining a useless structure has a cost for no reward) so if you found a structure with no function and which couldn't be accounted for in the way described above, then this too would serve to falsify the theory of evolution.

Fantasising about people who disagree with you is not a substitute for a valid argument against them.

There's a forum called something like evolutionfairytale.com where they recite stuff like this when they want to make reality go away.It never works, but that doesn't stop 'em from trying.The cult leader is called something like Fred Johnson or Thompson or something like that. IIRC, he posted briefly on EvC forums and then ran away as fast as his cowardly little legs would carry him.If ICDESIGN sounds like this "Karl" chap, the most parsimonious explanation is that they've both joined the same potty little creationist sect, and have both been taught to recite the same gibberish by Fred What's-his-name.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I did get the domain name right.Have a look at their stuff about giraffes, it's hillarious.And here's their stuff about "evo-babblers".That's quite funny too, especially the whine about "asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature".Yes, that's a true symptom of a scientist. Wait, what am I saying, I mean "evo-babbler".So my bet is that ICDESIGN has learned to recite this stuff whenever all the facts are against him, same as this "Karl" chap.I mean, they have to do something, and they are incapable of admitting that any part of their fantasy world is unreal.

It isn't. Natural selection is responsible for the appearance of design.You question is like challenging us to produce the painter who painted the wings of butterflies. He didn't. There wasn't one. And it isn't paint.---PS: was I right that you're reciting stuff you learnt from Fred What's-his-name?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure. There are computer simulations which show that random mutation plus natural selection produce the appearance of design. You have already been shown this. No-one has claimed, ever, that "the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape of form". Perhaps you have misunderstood what has been claimed.I have explained to you very carefully why the computer itself is not part of the model. If there was anything in my explanation that you didn't understand, please ask some specific question about your ignorance.In the meantime, let me tell you again.NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT "the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape or form". NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT. So asking us to "show" how that is true is nonsense at best and dishonesty at worst.

While your sadistic fantasies about us provide an interesting insight into your state of mind, they are not actually an argument in favor of your crackpot pseudoscience.