Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
28 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, jar, nwr, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,784 Year: 20,820/19,786 Month: 1,217/2,023 Week: 168/557 Day: 55/43 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 646 of 702 (571835)
08-02-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by ICANT
08-02-2010 11:53 AM


Re: More Of Your Sauce
I am told because we can see some things evolve to a certain point that infers that evolution of all things took place from a single cell life form to present day life forms.

No. You're told that because we see the processes of natural selection and randim mutation produce arbitrary complexity, they can be the explanation for how all living things could be descended from a single Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Were they? Observation of natural selection and random mutation offers no support for that hypothesis. To support that hypothesis, we turn to genetic and fossil evidence, which is overwhelming.

So can I ask for and demand the evidence for the parts of evvolution that has never been observed in the so-called process of evolution.

Sure you can. But right now we're talking about your contention that because some information comes from minds, all of it must come from minds. Don't change the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 11:53 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 648 of 702 (571837)
08-02-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by ICANT
08-02-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Antenna gains
1,000,000,000 nanograms = 1 gram, = 750,000,000,000 mgb.

This is well in excess of the amount of genetic information in any human cell. How are you doing this math? How do you justify a conversion between cell mass and data size?

The entire human genome is only 3,000 mbp (or 3 gbp.) One megabasepair isn't the equivalent of one megabyte; a byte is eight bits but you need only two bits to specify a nucleotide base, because there are only four. (2 to the power of 2.)

So we have 750,000 times the information stored in 1 gram of human DNA as can be stored in 1T hard drive.

No, we don't. You're just making things up, now. 3 billion base pairs can be represented by two bits each, since there are only four bases. That adds up to less than 750 megabytes, a footprint smaller than any hard drive produced since 1994.

The intelligent designer that designed the human DNA was a lot smarter than human designers are.

You're right that natural selection and random mutation is a more effective way to produce information and design than intelligence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 12:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 7:57 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 649 of 702 (571838)
08-02-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by ICANT
08-02-2010 12:59 PM


Re: Antenna gains
So 1 gram of human cells would contain 750,000,000,000 megabytes of stored information.

All those cells would have the same information, though. Remember that the cells in your body are clones of each other.

Again the entire human genome is no more than 750 megabytes and can be downloaded in the space of seconds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 12:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 7:45 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 655 of 702 (571845)
08-02-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by ICANT
08-02-2010 5:35 PM


Re: Antenna gains
If I remember correctly they did not stop bleeding people until 1925 when it was discovered that the life of the flesh was in the blood.

Could you elaborate on how and when that "discovery" was made?

The ignorance you have about the history and process of science really beggars belief. It's on par with your inability to perform basic multiplication.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 5:35 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 9:12 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 665 of 702 (571856)
08-02-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by ICANT
08-02-2010 6:31 PM


Re: Antenna gains
So we agree then that information can come from a mind.

I don't think anyone thought that was in dispute.

Now if you could just inform me how and what information does not come from a mind I would appreciate it.

Happy to! Genetic information does not come from a mind; it comes from random mutation and natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 6:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 669 of 702 (571860)
08-02-2010 7:15 PM


We should expect the designs of a supposedly infinite and divine intelligence to clear a higher bar than the "better than nothing" standard ICDESIGN puts forth in his first message.

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by ICdesign, posted 08-02-2010 7:46 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 674 of 702 (571871)
08-02-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by ICANT
08-02-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Antenna gains
I am aware that all the cells contain two copies of the same information.

No, just one copy. (Some cells have no copies at all.)

Which does not effect the storage space available in human DNA that is in a body.

All your cells have to have almost same genome because they're all descendants of the same original cell. It's not possible to construct a human body out of cells of radically different genetic content.

Again, the human genome is only 3 billion base pairs long.

Would I be correct to say that the DNA is so small you would have to have a powerful microscope to view it?

Not at all. DNA can often be viewed with the naked eye:

[img]http://universe-review.ca/I11-50-extraction.jpg[/url][/url]http://universe-review.ca/I11-50-extraction.jpg[/url]

Or with a simple light microscope:

Now if any of my numbers or figureing is wrong please correct me.

You've been corrected, already. The data necessary to store a human genome is 750 megabytes, which would fit on a CD. Certainly it's a lot smaller than a CD, I don't know anybody who would dispute that, but 3 billion base pairs in two-bit encoding is only 750 megabytes or so, no matter how you do the math.

Would I be correct to assume that the intelligent designer that designed the small footprint storage media would be a superior designer to the one who designed the large footprint storage media?

Would I be correct in pointing out that a one-terabyte hard drive is a lot smaller than a human body?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 7:45 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 11:01 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 675 of 702 (571873)
08-02-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by ICdesign
08-02-2010 7:46 PM


Finally back on topic
Excuse me Crash, but what I put forth in the opening of this topic is how you, Crashfrog, claimed that an example of an intelligent design was your opinion of how the eye should have been designed.

Indeed. Shouldn't a supposed infinite divine designer produce designs that are smarter than mine? "Smarter than Crash" seems a fairly low hurdle to clear, especially for God. Why was "better than nothing" the standard you decided, then, to defend?

Shouldn't "unimprovable by any human being" be the standard that we should be able to hold your designer to? If that's the standard you think is met why do millions of human beings need human-designed corrective eyewear or even surgery? Why are so many human beings unable to see at all?

Incidently, "your" version of the eye design would go blind in a matter of days due to UV ray damage.

It's amazing that in almost 700 messages you couldn't provide a cite for that claim.

Do you even know anything about designing anything original? I mean, what have you ever designed and then built?

Did you not see before when I told ICANT about some of the things I've designed and built?

I designed an electrochemical bioassy setup for Loxosceles reclusa for the USDA, for instance. Also I've designed and built a Java-based, collaborative isometric role-playing game environment including a chat client and a dice expression interpreter.

What have you ever designed? Please be specific.

What is your definition for a design that would qualify as intelligent?

By a supposedly divine, infinite intelligence? I've just made that definition: unimprovable by any human means. Does the eye rise to that standard? I think it's obvious that it does not. Otherwise what are glasses for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by ICdesign, posted 08-02-2010 7:46 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 681 of 702 (571886)
08-02-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by ICANT
08-02-2010 9:12 PM


Re: Antenna gains
But a quick search produced information that Sir William Osler in the 1892 edition his Principles and Practice of Medicine was still supporting bloodletting.

As an aside, were you aware that phlebotomy is still the standard medical treatment for hemochromatosis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 9:12 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 687 of 702 (571936)
08-03-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 684 by ICANT
08-02-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Antenna gains
NM. Saw the Moose.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2010 11:01 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019