Evidence to expect given a designer

Hi JBR, Fixed that for you buddy.Mutate and Survive

There is evidence of natural unintelligent causes.Where is the evidence of any supernatural causes?It really is that simple.

Yes, it does. But I cannot find any of those finger prints in nature, and that makes ID a very dubious thesis.

That's an easy one:Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture): Page not found | UW Video

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

Lol. That's like saying that because every time the ice-cream man hands out a pop-cycle he decreases the over all temperature by 10^-942 degree, that Mr. Good bar is therefore the cause of the last Ice Age. I "note" no such thing Doc. When organisms REproduce, each organism often carries within it two alleles of the same gene. When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 pairs of chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion.However no "new" never before existed DNA "information" is being introduced. It is only a manipulation of the already existing information in the human gene pool. In order for you to demonstrate otherwise Doc, you would have to produce at least one example of observed added beneficially NEW information to the gene pool of any multi-celled organism. That is the only evidence that would conclusively prove that the neodarwinian theory is possible. And I'll give you a clue to save you from searching to long and hard... "no such examples exist."

Space, time, matter... everything originated in the Big Bang, an incommensurably huge explosion that happened 13.7 billion years ago. The Universe was then incredibly hot and dense but only a few moments after, as it started to cool down, the conditions were just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter — in particular, the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons, which in turn were bundled into nuclei three minutes later.
Directory | CERN You don't answer Chuck77's question as to how DNA or anything was produced out of nowhere.If there was no Space, Time or Matter, or anything prior to the Big Bang there is no proof that NATURE has in fact produced anything.This could lead one to the conclusion whatever produced the Big Bang is in fact the originator of all we now find in the universe incuding Biological Evolution.It is just as easy to assume that Biological evolultion is a result of a plan prior to or at the time of the Big Bang and what we now know as evolution is in fact a planned process.
You cannot prove NATURE is the producer of evolution, but it may in fact be the result of a designed plan.Many on this board say show me a Designer, I say show me how NATURE began.

Ummm... tap, tap, tap, (on the screen). Did you miss the part of the definition for specificity that includes "function?" For example a combination lock requires a specific code to be entered before it performs the "function" of unlocking. Of course I'm not going to cite lame functions like, how a hand is perfectly fitted to grasp, or anything like that. However DNA, on the other hand, uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build all the correct cells, in all the correct locations.

Well, I'd love to hear what your level of knowledge is about chemistry and biology that you think gives you sufficient basis for making any claims of design in biology.

No, these would be two different things. If (for example) I write a program to simulate evolution, then evolution is part of my plan, but the course it takes is not a planned process.

No it isn't.It's like saying: "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." You don't? How amusing. You said something true. So no-one designed your DNA. There's this thing called mutation, you may have heard of it. Are you pretending that no-one's observed adaptive evolution in multi-celled organisms? Or are you planning to take refuge from this fact in vacuity of language and undefined terms?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You didn't even listen to that on-line lecture, did you?

Hi Shadow,Your first post in this thread and you're already off topic. I'm not going to coax and cajole you to get on topic this time. Youve done this so many times before, and you've never paid attention to moderation before, so I'm just going to suspend you for a week.When you come back, if you still want to talk about how nature began then I suggest you find a thread on that topic or propose one yourself.

No. What I was questioning is your use of the word "purpose" (and later, "intent"). I was suggesting that you were assuming that "function" implies intelligent purpose and intent. I pointed out to you that "function" is commonly produced by unintelligent processes.By "objective purpose", I meant purpose from the designer's perspective. You were talking about archaeology, and archaeologists perceiving intelligent design in objects they uncover. They perceive this partly because they are familiar with the designers (us) and our purpose in making tools, weapons and buildings. So, what I wanted to know was: what intelligent purpose do we see in life forms? What are bacteria for from a designer's perspective? What's a giraffe for? What is Plasmodium falciparum for?Because you've brought up archaeology, I want to know how biologists can see intelligent purpose in organisms in the same way that an archaeologist can perceive intelligent purpose in an arrowhead or an axe or the foundations of the building. Once again, don't confuse function as being a purpose from the perspective of the designer. This illustrates your fundamental mistake. You look at DNA, and then at something which is intelligently designed by an organism (the combination lock by humans) and see an analogy between the two. I've already pointed out that both intelligent and unintelligent organisms use "specific codes". Chemical signals are actually used as the prime method of communication by unintelligent organisms far more often than by intelligent ones.Because you can see a similarity in DNA and things that we humans make does not make an argument for intelligent design. We build canals and irrigation ditches. But the first cultures to do so would have been wrong if, because of this fact, they assumed that their gods had designed the rivers and streams.

Early in the thread Mike introduced the idea that archaeologists are looking for signs of intelligence, and I've been meaning to respond to this. Yours is the last post mentioning this, and I've got time now.Archaeologists are not looking for signs of intelligence. They're seeking evidence of ancient human cultures. Archaeologists no more have a method for detecting intelligence than creationists.--Percy

I think that they frequently look for signs of intelligently designed artifacts as evidence for ancient human cultures. The effect of intelligent tool use on things is probably the easiest way to identify ancient human presence in any area, don't you think? (Apart from the bones of ancient humans themselves, of course). Archaeologists don't have a strict formula, certainly, but use a number of observations. They certainly don't have a formula that would apply universally, and therefore nothing that could be used by those who argue for intelligent design by unknown designers in the biosphere.