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

No. "We?" Speak for yourself.

What rolls loaded gets disqualified.

---

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

And then creationists wonder why they never make it into the peer-reviewed literature.

I personally don't have a definition. There are a number of different informational metrics that can be profitably used to analyse DNA.I know that Percy has an approach to Shannon information as it applies to population genetics, but I've never been convinced it was useful in terms of analysing information content in functional regions of DNA.It has been shown that protein coding sequences have lower levels of shannon entropy and shannon entropy has also been used to identify protein binding site in DNA (Schneider, 1997(PDF); Herman and Schneider, 1992 ).Jack Szostak has an alternative approach based on actually correlating sequence changes with changes in biological function (Hazen et al., 2007). I find this more in line with my own feelings about meaningful measures of information but it is very reliant of having a very detailed in depth knowledge of the many sequences which may perform a specific function and is limited in its ability to incorporate the development of novel function. I don't know, since you bring nature into it its hard to draw a clear distinction. I'd certainly stipulate that all pattern is not a product of intelligent design. Yes. Yes. I don't know that I would, in part this is related to your subsequent theme about Chaos theory. I would dispute this. You cannot perhaps set out an explicit abstract symbolic matching but you can certainly identify proxy measures which allow us to garner stored information about a system. Examples would be the stalactites you mentioned, also tree rings, patterns of sand on a tidal shore, geographical strata and also (in my opinion at least) the patterns of genetic information in living organisms. That isn't really what Chaos theory is, Chaos theory is principally about the way that even relatively simple deterministic rule sets can give rise to drastically different and essentially unpredictable outcomes based on very minute differences in starting conditions.In many ways this gives, rather than a way for apparent order to form from chaos, a way for high complexity to form from simple rule sets. Isn't this rather the point under discussion? You can't just sneak that past as a given I'm afraid. Information has to come from somewhere, I might just about go for that, but needing an intelligent entity as its source, I don't agree. I consider there to be thousands of natural sources of information in the universe, you seem to be getting the concept of information confused with that of an intentionally sent message, and it is the question of intentionality that is in question here.I realise of course that this approach, trying to sneak your desired conclusion in to the initial postulates, is the cornerstone of most creationist genetic information arguments like those of Werner Gitt. The same applies here as above. This also begs the question of how you define information, and more importantly how would you measure it in a genetic sequence. Mostly it seems to be a tendency to take as a given the point you are supposed to be arguing for. Obviously I am not going to accept a priori your contention that all information, including that in DNA, requires an intelligent source. Which you assume is impossible or requires an intelligent source, neither of which you seem to have any argumentation or evidence to support.TTFN,WK

Hey you evolution dudes will be happy to know I figured out what your problem is. You need to change your diet and quit eating Lucky Charms for your main staple.Lets see now. We have blatant design all over the place but according to you it only appears to be design. We have purpose through and through within every system in our body (not to mention all over the planet) but you say their was no purpose because that requires thought and of course evolution has no mind. (Boy, I sure said a mouth full of truth there).Its just all so magically delicious isn't it?I am pitching my tent on this subject of the skeletal system for awhile because I think the responses continue to be foolish and nonsensical at best. The answers evolution offers for simple common sense questions belong in some kind of museum of fools.You are making a lot of claims of evolution performing tasks that only a thinking mind could possibly achieve that I would like to highlight when I return in the next day or two.May God be glorified Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

No, the question is nonsense. Asking why the skull is big enough for the brain is like asking why your tea seems to know how to take the shape of the cup.It's just a function of your incredible scientific ignorance. You have no idea how the body works, so to you it seems like magic, and to you, "magic" must equal "design." What's your proof that "thinking minds" can only create living things, when no thinking mind has ever been observed designing a living thing from scratch? Isn't it a major objection to the idea of intelligent design of organisms that no intelligent designer has ever been able to design a living organism except by simply copying what has already evolved in nature? How do you explain the amazing failure of intelligence to actually produce living things, if intelligence is the only thing that can produce living things?

Well, if the tea had actually started a gas stove, and then began boiling a kettle of water, and then watched the kettle of water to decide when the exact right temperature had been reached, and then placed itself into a cup and saucer, and then slowly poured the hot water all over itself (twice to clean off any impurities first), and THEN fit itself into the size of the cup it put itself in, and then signaled to someone that it was ready for drinking, then your analogy would be ever so slightly closer to being comparable to the brain fitting exactly inside a skull. You are still in school, correct? Is there a possibility you can get a refund?No one should ever have to answer this silly question. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Hi, ICDESIGN. Belittling people with references to children's cereal jingles are about the lowest form of humor available. So, you have now shown your complete ineptitude at two different professions.In light of this pattern of ineptitude, maybe your swansong would have been better spent on showing us something you're actually good at.----- That's a pretty good summary of the two positions, even though it doesn't present them equally. Curiously, even though everybody is already aware that these are the two positions, this seems to be the only thing you have managed to say since starting this thread.Why don't you elaborate at all?----- Now, if only you could articulate why you think this, all these stupid, igorant, blind evolutionists would be able to apply your reasoning and learn something.I guess you would rather leave us wallowing in our ignorance than try to help enlighten us like the good Christian you pretend to be.

---

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

I don't see how. Perhaps you can elaborate from your detailed and thorough expertise of human developmental anatomy. Why don't you talk me through exactly how the brain and skull develop? Step by step. Be specific, please. So you're admitting that you can't?

I disagree with you, his response was well worded and thought out, and answered a lot.Now, does the fact that TWO people believe his ideas are valid make them more worthwhile? Because that is basically the technique that every evolutionist uses on this site. One guy says something however unsubstantiated,, and then 3 other evolutionists chime in that, "Hey, yea he is right, you don't know what you are talking about.."..and then that claim that because everybody agrees, they must be correct.Because all you have done with your post is to try to jump on a bandwagon, while saying nothing. That is not a fair debate.

Yes plenty of design, all human designed. Where is the evidence that any not human made item is designed, other than appearance of design?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Lightning can start a fire. Water can be warmed by the sun or geothermal processes. Hot water can make tea-like infusions in nature. So, sure, nature can do everything that your tea connoiseur can do. All he's doing is mimicking nature.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

There's a very simple answer to this question. Any organism whose brain didn't fit inside its skull likely wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce, so that trait wouldn't be selected for.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Lets see now. We have blatant evolution all over the place but according to you it only appears to be evolution. We have evolutionary adaptation through and through within every system in our body (not to mention all over the planet) but you say their was no evolution because that requires natural processes which actually exist and which we can observe and of course your religion attributes all this to magical processes which don't actually exist and which we can't observe. (Boy, I sure said a mouth full of truth there).It's just all so magically delicious isn't it? Actually the answers belong in a museum of paleontology. If you want to know about the evolution of the skeletal system you can go look at all the intermediate forms.Now, what was the creationist answer to these "simple commonsense questions". Wasn't it something about an invisible sky-fairy doing magic?

Interesting lie. Whom do you hope to deceive by telling it?