Direct observation is only one of the ways that we make determinations and reach conclusions.
Well I didn't say "directly" observed did I? I said clearly observed. That is to say observed in a manner that is 99.99% sure. Not to mention the fact that you are waffling your examples back and forth wildly. My original comment was referring to evidence or lack there of, that DNA formed by natural processes. I specifically mentioned the lack of even observed additions of new info in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism. To which you compared to evidence in a criminal case. Then when I responded to the criminal case comment you immediately waffled back to refute my comments with things like, lack of observation of atoms. Your jumping all over the board and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix, which doesn't even apply to the question of DNA formation. I haven't got time to keep chasing your bunnies my friend. Are you going to provide evidence that "highly infers" that single celled organisms became multi-celled etc... or not?
Sorry, but you missed the point. My specific question was whether the arrangement of the wires was by design. Care to give it another go?
Well given the definition of specificity and my lack of any knowledge about antennas, I have no recognition response and therefore I personally can not detect design in the actual arrangement. That doesn't mean there is none. It only means that I am not qualified to make that determination.
In the case of DNA, it is the creation of DNA. This is how DNA is made. Every time. By reproduction with variation and sometimes recombination as well. This is how we get DNA. This is how you got yours and I got mine.
Note that you are not in fact a copy of either of your parents.
Reproductions do not explain the existence of the originals... Doc.
If by that you mean the first life, then no it doesn't. However, the inference would still be that it was produced by natural unintelligent causes rather than intelligent supernatural causes, because this is how DNA is invariably produced. If you want to argue that some DNA was made some other way, the onus is on you.
So then you're good? No need to backup how DNA or anything was produced unitelligently?
The evidence that backs it up is that in our experience this is how it is always produced; just as the evidence that backs up the statement "no pigs have wings" is that in our experience we always see wingless pigs. The onus of proof is, therefore, on someone who claims the existence of an exception.
How about you show how DNA was produced unintelligently out of nowhere and we'll work on showing how it was produced SN.
I don't think that it was "produced out of nowhere". I do, however, think that it was not produced supernaturally, because in my experience nothing is. Every time we manage to definitively find out the cause of something, it turns out to have natural causes, just as every time we see a pig it has no wings.
I don't think that it was "produced out of nowhere". I do, however, think that it was not produced supernaturally, because in my experience nothing is. Every time we manage to definitively find out the cause of something, it turns out to have natural causes
Ok, you think it was not produced SN because your experience says different. For instance a computer was not produced SN of course, is that what you mean?
I said that they weren't supernatural, not that they weren't designed.
Ok but you agree they are designed. We can tell they were designed. Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us? Anything? Or are we to believe it came about some other way as you suggest?
Ok but you agree they are designed. We can tell they we're designed.
Only because we know that they're designed. I know that an Apple computer was made in a factory because I know that computers are made in factories; and I know that an apple grew on a tree because apples grow on trees. Without knowledge gained from experience, however, how would we know which to ascribe to which cause?
Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us?
In nature? No, I can't see it, and you can't either. Design in nature is something you infer, rightly or wrongly. What we see is reproduction, variation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, etc.
Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us?
This is one of those threads where people who propose that design leaves fingerprints are being asked to describe those fingerprints. What are the markers for identifying designed objects that haven't been built by humans. Biological things don't have tool marks and generally don't look much like things we've watched being designed.
In this thread usually the answers boil down to either 1) that awesome wonderful thing reflects the designer's glory and must have been deliberate (complex specified information), or 2) that improbably cool thing must have been designed because it could not have arisen by accident (irreducible complexity) or 3) some mashed up combination.
For example Archaeologists infer intelligence in an artifacts formation by looking for specified design clues. That is to say features that the archaeologist recognizes as being formed with purpose in mind.
And what objective purpose have you identified in life forms? Don't confuse function with intelligent purpose. A natural bridge can function as a bridge without having been intelligently designed for that purpose. A complex cave system can function as the habitat for numerous organisms without having been intelligently designed for that purpose.
Marine biologists detect levels of intelligence in dolphins by studying specified communication patterns of the dolphins. That is to say, patterns that the biologist recognizes as having specific meanings to the dolphin community.
They are assessing biological intelligence that comes from brains. Unintelligent organisms also have "specified communication patterns", so it's a mistake to infer from examples like ourselves and the dolphins that communication requires intelligence.
And finally, SETI scientists search for extra terrestrial intelligence by looking for specific radio signals that are narrow in bandwidth and are known only to occur artificially by an intelligent source with an intended purpose.
Note that in all three of these scientific fields, intelligence is being detected by something that can be termed as "specificity." Specificity can be defined like this: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose.
Once again, don't confuse any function we can specify with intelligent purpose. By using the word "intended" above, you seem to be assuming your conclusions. In all of your examples, scientists are looking for intelligence in known biological beings with nervous systems and brains, or (with SETI) hypothetical biological beings from other life systems. Intelligence is a known attribute of some life forms, but is not known to exist independently of a life system (our machines aren't independent of us, even if we manage to make intelligent ones).
JBR(my bold) writes:
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 it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response. Therefore if specificity is recognized by the scientific community as a sign of intelligence, then whenever we observe it we can conclude that its origins are from an intelligent source.
"Specificity" is not recognized by the scientific community as being necessarily a sign of intelligence.
I repeat: Unintelligent organisms also have "specified communication patterns", so it's a mistake to infer from examples like ourselves and the dolphins that communication requires intelligence.
DNA uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build the correct cells. Here we have a clear case of code being transmitted, and then received to producing a functional response match, completely independent of the first (specificity). Devoid of any observable evidence that shows how it can possibly form naturally, it should be concluded to have originated from an intelligent source. Yet seemingly, for completely unscientific personally biased reasons, that conclusion is rejected time and time again.
Chemical function and communication is not confined to intelligent organisms, so why associate it with intelligence? Bacteria communicate with each other in chemical codes, and translate signals into action.
And intelligence is only associated with life systems, so it's hardly a likely explanation for the origin of life, is it?