"Creation Science" experiments.

I did that already. Your myth is busted. On what planet does that count as a workable definition?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

You're saying that all unicorns are pink because nobody has ever observed a unicorn that isn't pink.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Even if your hypothesis was correct it is useless and valueless.For your idea of Intelligent Design or the really silly undefined APC to be of any use whatsoever, you must present the model of HOW the agent creates APC.I can say that a car was designed or a radio was designed or a fountain pen was designed, but until I can understand how they were designed, it is just worthless information.BUT...once we understand the model for how, as an example, your imaginary designer designed APC (whatever that is), the designer becomes just a footnote, unimportant except as an historical footnote or in cases of product liability.Until you produce a model that explains living things better than the current models, Creationism and Intelligent Design will remain the joke they are today.

---

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

Your argument is circular because you make no serious attempt to define APC. From your post it seems you are well aware of the points you are taking heat about. Your response seems to be to attack the theory of evolution. That does your position no good. You need either a definition or a methodology that identifes APC and not mere skepticism about evolution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi JBR, That's an odd thing to say when you acknowledge in the very next line that there is evidence for it. Yes. You are alluding to Lenski's experiments, which prove, beyond doubt, that random mutation can produce function. Why? I agree that this would be very interesting, but really, you have evidence that mutation produces function. What exactly is it about bacteria that you think makes them so different? What functional difference do you think is going to interfere with this line of reasoning? You must realise that the short lifespans of bacteria make them much better subjects for this kind of experiment than other life forms. You are asking for something that is very difficult to achieve - as is typical of creationist rhetoric.Bacteria have DNA and it mutates and produces new function. Multi-cellular animals also have DNA, which also mutates and they also produce function somehow. Why is it so implausible to suggest that the same thing is happening in both? We can observe fruit flies mutating to produce eyeless examples or very dark examples. Is it so hard to believe that such features could prove advantageous? Organisms in caves very often have missing or diminished eyes. Flies living in polluted areas would find their dark colouration an advantage in avoiding predation. These could well serve as advantages and we know that they were caused by unguided mutation. I'd say this comes pretty close to what you're asking for.Also, let's be honest; no-one has ever seen your God, sorry, Designer either. No-one has ever caught him in the act of diddling with our DNA. You don't seem in the bit sceptical about him though.Be honest. Which do you think is more likely, more scientific, more parsimonious?That the same process we see in bacteria applies to other DNA based life?Or that a magic man is sneaking around invisibly, magically altering our genomes, without leaving so much as a mark?If you want to play the incredulity game, I think you have some catching up to do.Mutate and Survive

Because no-one but you has ever used the term apc, because they don't know what it means. No, it's similar to asking "how do I know that only humans create flugglewerp?"

Then you might want to read up on apolipoprotein A1 in Italy or on hemoglobin C in Burkina Faso. Humans are pretty much multi-celled, no? And less heart attacks or less malaria could be construed as "improved function," right? No matter whether Answers in Genesis disagrees?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

It is the name of some over-the-counter pills you used to be able to buy at the drug store. I think it was Aspirin, Phenacetin, Caffeine.

Several precise mathematical laws have been formulated by computer scientists which express the Law of Conservation of Information. This law states that within certain limits the amount of information in a computer in its initial state (counting software and hardware) equals or exceeds the amount of information in its final state. If you carefully examine the algorithms in your "robots" I am confident that you will see that this law is confirmed. I attempted to go to the source link in the article and check for myself, but it failed. I should point out that evolutionists have tried many times to write algorithms that produce information which is both complex and specified by random processes. These genetic algorithms at first appear to solve the information problem, but in truth after closer analysis, it is only at the expense of the programmers first supplying information about proximity to target sequences, selection criteria, or loops of precisely sequenced instructions. It in no way comes close to giving a ray of hope for explaining the apc observed in all living DNA molecules.One other thing I should point out here is, when they finally do create artificial intelligence (and I am confident that one day they will), these machines ability to learn and produce apc will only be yet another example of intelligence being required to produce apc. It is not in any way a falsification of the theory of intelligent design. It is further evidence and support of it.

You appear to be deviating into error with this first line of your reasoning by confusing "containing" specified complexity with "producing" specified complexity. Note that unintelligent agents can easily be the containers for specified complexity. But only an intelligent source can be the original producer of apc.

To my knowledge I rebutted all of the examples you tried. But if I missed one please reiterate.

Now your just intentionally being obtuse. But in keeping with your silly example, had any unicorns ever been observed...ever...and only pink unicorns were reported ever being seen......then yes

You are certainly welcome to your opinion "that it is worthless information," but when it comes to identifying and choosing between something having an intelligent source or a natural unguided source, I am free to disagree with you.My five year old can look at all of those items you mentioned above and tell me if they were formed by intelligence or by unintelligent. He would probably use different wording but the principle and the way in which he assesses them is identical. He does NOT have to know how any of those things were made just to tell me that they must have an intelligent source. And that is all we are talking about here jar.

Alright, let me attempt to define this again more exhaustively.abstruse: hard to understand because of being extremely complex, intellectually demanding, difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge; "the professor's lectures were so abstruse that students tended to avoid them"; "a deep metaphysical theory"; "some recondite problem in historiography"particularized: directed toward a specific object; "particularized thinking as distinct from stereotyped sloganeering"Communication: a process of transferring information from one entity to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules.Scientists calculate the capacity of a pattern (for example in DNA) to communicate complex information using Shannon equations. Where (I) is information, and (p) is the occurrence of a particular sequence, and (n) is the length of nucleotides examined.I = -log2 p and p=(1/4)nThe view of information as a message came into prominence with the publication in 1948 of an influential paper by Claude Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication." This paper provides the foundations of information theory and endows the word information not only with a technical meaning but also a measure. If the sending device is equally likely to send any one of a set of N messages, then the preferred measure of "the information produced when one message is chosen from the set" is the base two logarithm of N (This measure is called self-information).
A complementary way of measuring information is provided by algorithmic information theory. In brief, this measures the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021 (see Wikipedia on information)Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA. As I pointed out in an earlier post, polymers can also be said to have abstruse information, but they lack particularization or specificity. IDists have successfully quantified specificity as being any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition). Or another example I like is the combination lock. When the correct combination is entered into the lock it produces a specific function response. In this case the lock does not require intelligence to understand the information, but the observer can still recognize the design by his independent understanding of how locks function. I must stress that the key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object. Otherwise any conferred specificity can merely be contrived rather than real.

I know that the lifespan of bacteria is exactly why they are the favorite "lab rats" among evolutionists to study and try to show evidence that random positive mutations could very well be the reason of all current life. The problem I have with them for one they seemed to be specially "designed" to be able to adapt novel functions in the absence of food sources. Two examples I cite for this apart from Lenskis ecol i experiments are Dr. Mortlocks experiments on soil bacteria in the 80's, in which they were able to metabolize Xylitol as substitute to their natural food source after it was denied. The other is of course the infamous Nylonase bacteria that was able to metabolize nylon waste (a completely man made substance). I would point out that most (not all) of the so called positive mutations occur on the bacterias plasmid DNA. And of course plasmids occur almost exclusively in bacteria. And lets face it, it make sense that a designer would have designed bacteria this way when you consider that they are not just able to up and migrate when a food source ends. They would require novel ways of metabolizing unconventional food sources in order to survive.And finally I would point out that even if they could eventually come up with an experiment which showed that it was at least possible for random mutations to be the cause of pushing life foreword to its current state, this would still be a long way from explaining how the code for the first DNA molecule could have formed to begin with. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.