Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

If some sort of DNA came from space, we would not consider it evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence...merely extraterrestrial life.This is circular reasoning. I was hoping for someone who could really challenge my messages.

Perhaps you can state that would be to much of a stretch to compare biological systems to mechanical ones that were designed by people.

Too much of a stretch? They are not even in the same ballpark. It is comparing apples to oranges. Biological systems at the microscopic level are the result of accumulated chemical changes and guided by natural selection. Machines are designed, created and maintained by human beings. Case closed.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

How is this circular reasoning? We find life, that means there's life, that's pure logic. No where do we jump to the conclusion of intelligent life, because the mere existence of life does not mean intelligence also exists. Science doesn't jump to conclusions like you seem to want to.

Can you explain then?What do you consider "neo-darwinism" and what do you consider "evolution"?If you are going to be involved in a debate don't just brush off everything that is said to you without explaining why you reject it.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Perhaps you could take that to this thread?
Distinguishing "designs"( shameless promotion of one's own thread )The comparison shows that life forms are nothing like mechanical designs (other than some special ones*) but rather are exactly like "designs" from evolutionary processes.* the special ones are those produced by evolutionary process rather than human designers.

Too much of a stretch? They are not even in the same ballpark. It is comparing apples to oranges. Biological systems at the microscopic level are the result of accumulated chemical changes and guided by natural selection. Machines are designed, created and maintained by human beings. Case closed.Not that I expect to convince you but I can use the complex AMP molecule to strengthen my case. And my case is that I would tend to agree with you if I didn't see evidence of design and not just a God of the gaps. I can also use the Cambrain explosion and Darwin's tree. According to Darwin's theory:

1. There should be simple life forms in the beginning that gradually became more complex.

2. Life would have become increasingly diverse.

The first one is correct but the second scenario did not happen. Instead of one phylum at first and seeing a slow and steady increase of phylum, we see what seems to be seeding of phylum. (Mainly during the Cambrain period). Darwin's theoretical tree of life is not supported in the fossil record. This implies design. Now, lets go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy where they do an exceptional job explaining evolution to see what they say.CC300: Cambrian Explosion

I have read other good points from both sides of the debate and I thought this was one of their strongest arguments:Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

However, Paul Chien refutes this theory in the link below:

QUIZ & ANSWERS for: Intelligent Design and the Origin of Animal Phyla

It is circular reasoning. If we received DNA from outer space it wouldn't disprove the existence of a creator. What it probably would do is force us to question the neo-Darwin paradigm. Why? How does DNA form on earth and in outer space by chance? The chances of that happening are inconsiderably astronomical. You can say that DNA came here from outer space but that still doesn't answer the question of how I was created in the first place.

Lynn Margulis has a theory that organisms advance by symbiosis and cooperation. There is also the complexity theory of evolution saying that organisms tend to organize themselves. You can google them am I am sure you will find these theories.These theories are not forms of neo-Darwinism because unguided mutations are not involved in these theories.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

The facts are against you traderdrew. Have a look at this From Ellen Thomas – University Professor, College of Integrative Sciences and Research Professor, E&ES

This argument is seriously flawed. Phyla have only existed for a few hundred years. They were invented by Linnaeus. Phyla are not real things, they are human contrivances. The only real, objective division in biology is at the level of species, and the number of species has increased over time. Could you expand on this a bit? How does Chien refute this theory?

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution (or neo-Darwinism if you want) deals with how life changed once it got here. Abiogenesis deals with how life got here.

Clarifying your argument, you're saying that new phyla are no longer emerging, and this is true. A new phylum would be analogous to a new branch growing from the base of a tree's trunk. While this is a possibility, it is not a requirement of evolution.Given that all ecological niches are currently filled, the emergence of new phyla would be extremely unlikely at this time. Continuing the analogy with a tree, increasing diversity today takes place nearer the canopy than the base of the trunk, and Peepul provided a very nice graph of the number of families plotted over time. Rather than just pointing us at a link, could you summarize what Paul Chien says that you think refutes the possibility of hox gene evolution? Uh, we know the odds against DNA forming by chance all at once are astronomical. No one in science believes that DNA formed suddenly by some miraculous chemical accident, not on earth and not in space. It was you who raised the possibility of not just DNA but entire organisms arriving from space back in Message 209: Perdition was originally just trying to point out the illogic in your argument. The arrival of entire organisms or just DNA from space does not imply intelligent beings. If you think there's a chain of logic that arrives at that conclusion then you'll have to elucidate it for us.What science does know is that complex organic molecules like amino acids and sugars arrive from space all time riding on meteorites. Conditions in space are apparently adequate for their spontaneous formation. I'm familiar with Lynn Margulis's work, but I don't know what a "complexity theory of evolution" is. Regardless, there are no aspects of evolutionary theory that ignore the relevant effects of mutations, or even more outlandishly, that pretend that mutations don't happen.By the way, you do not need the modifier "unguided." The entire natural world is unguided. There is no such thing as a "guided mutation" in nature. For a guided mutation you'd have to go to certain specialized labs where scientists have the technology to do the guiding themselves.--Percy

I am talking about phylum. Your link is about the diversity of genera.

That is correct and it doesn't invalidate my point.

Phyla have only existed for a few hundred years. They were invented by Linnaeus. Phyla are not real things, they are human contrivances.Now I have heard all of it. If this is true then why doesn't science just throw it out? Documentation please.