What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

The problem is that you don't have a designer for the IC systems seen in biological organisms. Given the finite history of our universe there has to be a First Designer somewhere along the way, and there is every reason to believe that in the case of Earth that humans are the First Designers.Also, the actual concept of IC is rather lame. It boils down to, "if you break something it stops working". You can put lipstick on it all you want, but that is pretty much it.

Given all the evidence you presumably have for putting forward this assertion as if it were conclusive where is your Nobel prize? You seem to have magically excluded a whole set of potential natural mechanisms just by wishful thinking.The 'universal genetic code' is not universal we know that the code can vary substantially and there is no theoretical reason why we couldn't produce a system with a wholly different set of codon complementations. None of these prove that the current modern genetic code is not the result of specific physicochemical tendencies, probably with a bit of contingency mixed in as is standard in biological systems.TTFN,WK

Here is the crux of the matter, but it comes down to exactly what I described earlier in the thread as the other alternative to design for IC systems: making multiple steps at a time.In your example, there are at least two steps: adding the spring, and using it for a different purpose.In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations. If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.

It is not a necessity that I identify a specific designer, it would be better I guess, but in no way does it negate the argument. Well, ''the argument is lame'' isn't an argument. First because it is subjective (someone might find it astonishing) and second because you phrased your boiled down version of it to fit your need to see it as 'lame' ...

This simply isn't the case, I'm surprised you can have been here for nearly 2 years and never encountered the arch metaphor before. It is the one where it is pointed out that an arch is irreducibly complex, in that removal of any stone causes the collapse of the structure, but can be constructed with the aid of a supporting scaffolding. After construction the scaffolding can be removed and the arch stands unsupported.Multiple mutations aren't necessarily impossibly unlikely, within reason, but they are also not required to evolve an IC system.Maybe to support your case you can provide a citation for some of the researches which have tried the approach you put forward?TTFN,WK

I haven't excluded potential mechanism as per this quote of myself:

quote:

---

It is the same thing with DNA. Somewhere along the line from none-life to life, a code was established either via randomness, [b]via an as-of-yet-unknown natural process[/qs], or via an intelligent being. But it wasn't because of any particular physical interaction.

---

(emphasis added) In fact, all this does point tot what I'm saying. This is all possible evidence that support the fact that the genetic code is in the same situations as human language, or binomial coding systems in informatic, etc. ie That it's information value comes strictly semantics.And the more it appears to come from arbitrary semantics, the less it comes from any real physical basis, and the more it comes from either some random luck in the primordial soup, or from an intelligent designer.Because if there no physical basis GAA is associated with Glutamic acid right now, why should it be ny different in the past ?By the way, isn't that the whole basis of the RNA world hypothesis ? (I'm venturing into somewhat unknown territory for me now) Isn't to provide a physical basis for a code that developped first in RNA, and that eventually lost it's physical aspect and became simply semantics in DNA ?

First time I discuss IC here, so no I had never encountered this metaphor (analogy ?)Does the arch have a function while it is being built in your analogy ? Or does it only acquire a function when it is finished ? If so, then it still requires the foresight of intelligence to aim towards that final functioning state even though in the meantime it serves no purpose. Behe certainly thinks the idea of multiple simulteneous mutations creating IC systems to be the biggest argument against his, since it is the main point of his last book to investigate this possibility. Well we have discussed one already: (emphasis added)essentially, they propose a mechanism where mutations can neutraly accumulate in a gene, and then be 'revealed' all at once for selection, hopefully giving a worthwhile result that will be selected for.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

So this is an irreducibly complex system that suddenly appeared?TTFN,WK

Not necessarily, but it is a mechanism by which it could be.It could have made a system which wouldn't have been selected for if each mutations had arisen one at a time, but if they all come together they become beneficial and are selected for.Or it could produce a deleterious system made of deleterious mutations.Or it could produce a beneficial system mde of beneficial mutations that could have arisen in a step-by-step evolution anywayEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I used to have a little animation that showed how an arch could have been built by purely natural means. Two rocks a little bit apart became almost buried in sand. Then two more rocks were washed/rolled into place above them and between them to finish the arch. Finally, the sand was washed away to open up the space under the arch - irreducible complexity without intelligent guidance and without any woo-woo "purpose".

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

The arch is a useless pile of rocks until the keystone comes in. It can't even support itself.But, the scaffold can both support the incomplete arch and allow for travel across the canyon, at the same time. The purpose of the scaffold is to do both. That's how an incomplete arch can "evolve" step-by-step; on top of something that provides the same function, only not as well. (Scaffolds aren't as strong as stone arch bridges.)

Then it comes down to the same thing. Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished.It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now.This situation still requires foresight, or random luck

And without any function as well.But I never disputed that randomn luck could produce IC systems, which seems to be the case in your example. (I don't think Behe disputes this as well)

Function is just another arc in your circular logic. You don't need foresight to get function. The turtles can use the arch as a bridge even if they didn't plan it.Edited by ringo, : Cpelling.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Utter nonsense. Total crap.There is but one step, removing the spring.NOTHING has an intended purpose.If something works it is pure chance, the mousetrap never intended to hold down bacon.The idea that IC systems are somehow different than any other system is pure marketing.

---

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