When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Maybe so, down line millions of years. How about the first most primitive life forms following abiogenesis? How were they/it to survive long enough to replicate void of ID?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Without replication, they aren't life Buz. The most primitive life-forms would be capable of replication.

---

It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

There's no mystery there. Any cell-like (or otherwise life-like) structures that didn't have reproductive capability would simply die and never be heard from again. They weren't life until they had all of the characteristics of life, including reproduction.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

If the inverted retina is the intelligent way to do it then cephalopods (e.g. octopi and squid) have an unintelligently designed forward facing retina. Cephalopods even share the same environment and niches with vertebrate fish that, like us, have an inverted retina. This can't be a matter of different environments needing different retinas given that both fish and squid share the same environments and niches while having different arrangements for their retinas. Even more, the cephalopod eye is better at light capturing because the light does not have to go through any nerves in order to reach the photoreceptors.On top of all of this, the inverted and forward facing retinas stay within lineages just as the theory of evolution predicts. This is the opposite of what we expect from intelligently designed things where good ideas are shared across designs regardless of their intellectual heritage. Someone else mentioned design features of cars that were spread across all lineages. With life we see a very unintelligent way of putting design units together. Afterall, if feathers are good for flight then why don't bats have them? If gills are good for trout why don't whales have them?

Hi, Buzsaw. I think you're trying to ask how self-replication could have come about in the absence of Intelligent Design.I am willing to overlook your insistence on using the term "life" to refer to things that cannot reproduce despite having been corrected on this issue multiple times now, simply because I don’t think you’re ever going to assimilate these criticisms and alter your responses accordingly. But know that I share the objections that others have voiced.Before there was life, there was chemistry.
The chemistry of the early earth is hypothesized to have been such that it produced many types of organic chemicals.
These chemicals reacted with each other and produced more chemicals.
Entire systems of chemical reactions began to form, and began to be associated with one another.
Some of the chemicals could copy themselves or could facilitate the copying of other chemicals.
Some of the chemicals formed membranes that formed sacs by closing off portions of this system of chemical reactions.
Some of the chemicals caused a sac to split into two smaller sacs.Self-replication (at least as far as life forms are concerned) is a process of synchronizing the copying with the splitting, so that the splitting results in two sacs, each with one copy of the chemicals in them.So, before self-replication, there was simply unsynchronized copying and splitting. This could be seen as a form of reproduction, but it is inefficient, and probably had a very high failure rate. However, it is not necessarily the case that the failure rate was too high to overcome.Before there were copying and splitting, there was just a lot of chemicals being produced by the environment and interacting with each other in increasingly complex ways.Does this make sense to you? If it does, maybe we can get a little more in-depth. In fact, I think the emergence of self-replication might deserve its own thread, if it interests you.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi jay, So we have a hypothesis.Do we have any reproducible verifiable evidence to support this hypothesis?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sure. Experiments in the Miller-Urey vein have proved that the conditions of the early Earth (known from geology and astrophysics) could produce chemical structures suitable for exploitation by early proto-life.That life is a chemical state of being is known from about 200 years of observation.The question isn't so much whether the early Earth could have supported self-replicating chemistry - we're already aware that it could have. The really interesting question is how we got from simple self-replicating chemical structures, of which there are potentially dozens of trivial examples, to RNA-based, membrane-bound cells.But of course all this is predicated on understanding exactly what life is, yet that's the one question I never hear creationists ask: "what is life?" Is it that they have no idea? Certainly the Bible does not define what is alive and what is not. Or do they think it's a self-evidence question? Well, are viruses alive? Are prions? Are prokaryotes?Do you even know what those things are?

Probably brainwashed when they were young.

quote:

---

If the universe is "fine-tuned for life", why does the only life in the universe appear to live on a single planet surrounding a dismally typical star in a boringly average galaxy?

---

IF? There are at least 12 presision tuned eliments that have to be in perfect adjustment for us to exist here in this part of the of the universe.
If I need to list them you aren't as smart as I thought you were Crash.
...You crack me up. Do you see everything so gloomy? According to you its amazing the terrible design of our bodies exist at all and the stars are boring in an average galaxy.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

You don't know that. You have no idea the degree to which those cosmic constants may actually be derivatives of a smaller number of constants; you have no idea what the "degree of freedom" is for any of those - what values they're able to adopt - and you have no idea what range of constants permits life or something like it.You have absolutely no basis to assert "fine-tuning", and again - if the universe is so "fine-tuned" for life it's strange that all the life in the known universe exists only on a single planet. A "fine-tuned for life" universe should have life everywhere we look. I don't think it's gloomy at all. I think it's amazing that meat can think. I think it's amazing that life clings on in the face of a universe trying actively to destroy it at every moment. I think life in the universe, as transient as it is, is nonetheless an incredible privilege. And it's a privilege to be afforded the chance to accurately apprehend the nature of reality as it surrounds us - a privilege afforded only to human beings born in the last 100 years or so.And I don't understand the mindset of someone like you who would willingly turn your back on that privilege. The study of the natural world is the humbling task of several lifetimes. But it doesn't seem to make any impression on your relentless, angry, posturing attitude. Why is that? It's one thing to want to turn your back on reality in favor of cherished fantasies, but why are you always so angry about it?

Ah, so suddenly, I mean suddenly, from abiogenesis, the first living organism just popped into existence equipped with it all, including the capability to reproduce itselfy. WOW! That makes me even more convinced that design became intelligent from the getgo of anything living and/or not observed forming by natural means.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following link itemizes all that this includes which you evolutionists are saying must have allegedly popped suddenly into existence from the alleged premordal soup. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

No, it's likely that the first unambiguously living things were descended from ambiguously maybe-living things that could reproduce, which were themselves descended from unambiguously non-living chemical self-replicators.Honesty, Buz, this isn't that hard. Life didn't "evolve the ability to reproduce"; chemical structures that could self-replicate evolved life.There's a whole science of this stuff, Buz. You've been talking about these things for how long, now? Seven years?At any point are you going to actually learn the science you need to talk about the science? Just curious. The first living things would not have been cells, and it's absurd to say that a bacteria like E. coli is "primitive." E. coli is the result of millions of years of evolution and has a number of highly advanced features. The first living things would not have been anything at all like E. coli. E. coli is not even close to being the "minimal organism."Your link even says that. Did you read it? Frequently I've gotten the impression that you don't understand half of what you read.

HUH?They split.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No. Nobody said "suddenly". As I said, many different chemical compounds with some of the characteristics of life would have formed naturally and broken up ("died") naturally over long periods of time. That sort of thing is happening right now.Eventually, some of them developed the capability of replicating themselves. Then, though each individual molecule would still "die", the "species" of molecule would go on "living".Now that we do have all sorts of living things, those almost living things would be tasty morsels for something or other, so they'd be eaten as soon as they developed. Otherwise, you'd be seeing it happen in your back yard. The chemistry is inevitable.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

The whole idea of Intelligent Design is just plain stupid and quite honestly, even if it were true it would be irrelevant.Think.The existence of a designer is of no importance except for assigning blame when product liability suits come up.Even if there was some designer, that in itself tells us nothing of value. The designer is simply worthless when it comes to understanding the world we see around us.For ID to ever become anything more than a pitiful joke, a laughing stock, we would need to learn how the thing, be it a star or an eye, was created. We need to know that the shin bone was connected to the ankle bone, and that it was done with muscles and ligaments and the muscles and ligament evolved from undifferentiated stem cells and that the fuel for that was ...In simple terms, to have any value whatsoever we need to know the steps involved.Guess what?That is exactly what scientists do when the study abiogenesis and evolution.Trying to insert some Special Creation is just plain wasted effort and produces no new knowledge. Talking about or considering Intelligent Design is simply masturbation; it may be fun but it will never birth any new information.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!