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

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

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.

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.

I don't think anyone thought that was in dispute. Happy to! Genetic information does not come from a mind; it comes from random mutation and natural selection.

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.

No, just one copy. (Some cells have no copies at all.) 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. Not at all. DNA can often be viewed with the naked eye: Or with a simple light microscope: [img]http://131.229.114.77/microscopy/images/chromosomes1.jpg[/img]-->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 in pointing out that a one-terabyte hard drive is a lot smaller than a human body?

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

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

NM. Saw the Moose.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.