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

No. And the last part of this sentence makes little sense to me, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

It didn't. There was no intended purpose, there was what worked. Because it's beneficial to have a skull that can house your brain. They developed alongside eachother. Because it's advantageous having them where they are of actual use. Not really no. It is what you expect to find if evolution was the cause, however. Well, since there was no purpose, that would mean natural selection and random mutation could have come with it. And wadda you know! It did!

So? I've common sense to be exceptionally bad at determining truth. "It" didn't. There is no "thinking about it. If it helps your survival it stays, if it hinders your survival, it will not be propagated. But not an intended one. Which is why I never said that. Nothing. The pressures from outside determined what was beneficial and what wasn't. Again, nothing. Evolution is not a conscious process. See, that's what I mean with comon sense being exceptionally bad in these cases.Tell me, is this a bad design (thank you Subbie):

First of all, lots of people believe both in god and are convinced by the evidence for evolution. Second, you're wong, 'twas the Koran, see you in hell.

Those aren't "English" letters or numbers. Or are you telling me that when I am writing in my own language, I am actually writing English? Not really no. They would be impractical, but there is still aninfinite amount left. Sign language.

So, everytime we simulate gravity on a computer, that is proof gravity requires intelligence too?

So, let me get this straight, when we simulate gravity, that's not proof gravity requires intelligence, yet when we simulate evolutionary processes, that is proof that evolutionary processes require intelligence.Weird.

Let me get it straight.You said: Now, since it only proves you need it to simulate it, it also proves that evolutionary processes don't, by your own admission, need intelligence to operate.Thank you, did you really need so many posts to agree with us?

Exactly, and in the case of the antennae design program, they programmed it like it is in reality, an unguided process that uses no intelligence whatsoever.

But that has been your point this whole time!"Because intelligence is needed, in nature, intellignece is also needed"If this is not your point, and you agree that intelligence is not needed for evolutionary processes, then what the hell haveyou been arguing about this whole time?

Would you mind explaining to me how you came to work out that 1 gram of something is equivalent to 750,000,000,000 mgb?

Crashfrog didn't say that a cell contained that much information. He said the entire human genome does. This compression ratio has nothing tom do with intelligence however, it has far more to do with capability. We don't have to get more intelligent to achieve this ratio, we need to get more capable.

Nonsense, people who lived 100 years ago weren't less intelligent than people who live now, yet we can store data better than DNA does (see Dr. adequate's post), and they had to write everything on paper. Intelligence has nothing to do with capability. Quite, meaning that our intelligence is not the limiting factor. We did it better than him, so according to you, we are more intelligent.

Because they didn't know what caused those deseases. And did they really still bleed people in 1910? Because they didn't have the means and the knowledge to build them. That's probably because you are confusing intelligence with knowledge and capability. Store information. Depends on where I read it, or what it is that is claimed. And you know I haven't because? By the way, this coming from you is rather funny, though I suspect the humour is lost on you.

Nice bible reference there, you think nobody before 1925 knew that if someone bleeds alot, they gonna die? Do you think nobody knoew before the bible was written? Because knowledge is a cumulative process, not an instant one. You quite clearly are. No. Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving. (from wiki). The measure of the capability of the person to do this is called intelligence, and it has nothing to do with what that person knows or is capable of doing, even if he did know. For instance, I could have the knowledge to build a nuclear reactor, but were I stuck in the stone age, I don't think I could ever get one built. It is my capability that is preventing me from building the nuclear reactor, not my knowledge or intelligence. That's why I never claimed they were. No it doesn't. it quite clearly shows that those scientists succeeded in putting one bit of information on 20 atoms, wheresas your intelligent designer needs 64 to store two. Now, some of that math you love so much:64 / 2 = 32 (this is the amount of atoms your designer needed to store one bit of information)32 - 20 = 12 (this is the amount of atoms we did it fewer in)Clearly, by your own admission, we are more intelligent than your designer, since we did it way more efficiently than him.