Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

That isn't all that DNA does, a fact which make your next reply to KBC substantially wrong.While 'a child can understand the genetic code', that is not the be all and end all of the relevant material stored in the DNA. Where and when a developmental gene is expressed can be vital determinants of the resulting morphology. As a consequence there is a huge amount of non-coding genetic material concerned with the regulation of expression and which in many cases we do not understand the mechanisms for.So while it may be simple to understand how a protein coding gene codes for a specific amino acid sequence it is by no means a given that we can tell where and when that gene will be expressed simply by looking at the genetic sequence.We do have some idea of how a variety of mechanisms of regualtion operate however, so KBC's claim that it is a 'black box' is similarly overstated.TTFN,WK

It's pretty obvious that you haven't read any of the rest of my posts in this thread, because I make that exact point over and over again.But I guess if you forget something just once, the pedants crawl out of the woodwork, don't they? No offense but I take great issue with your attempt to paint me as "substantially wrong" from a position of ignorance about the discussion in question.

Oh right, and where did you say anything about our knowledge of the mechanisms of regulation? If you think you made that exact point then I cant see it in any of your posts.The fact that you recognise the existence of regulatory elements in DNA doesn't make your response to KCB less wrong in presenting, as it does, our knowledge of the genetic code as if it somehow contradicts the contention that the genome encodes information for what morphology an organ will have. Particular proteins produced in the right time at the right place can determine morphological properties of an organ/tissue.It seems to me that KCB's question is about how the network of developmental genes and the regulation of those genes leads to the production of a specific morphology, in that context simply discussing the genetic code is insufficient. The fact that KCB doesn't know enough to formulate such a question meaningfully doesn't mean that your answer is sufficient.TTFN,WK

Actually, if the intelligent designer is infinitely knowledgable, it could no doubt be able to consider an infinite number of forms.

Not necessarily.infinity/infinity and infinity - infinity are indeterminate; it would depend on which infinity wins out.

---

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine

This is not an argument against intelligent design. In fact, it is an argument for intelligent design. After all, I could point to architects that use recurring themes in their lives' works. Musicians also use recurring themes (hint: mozart). And it's not reasonable to assume that Frank Loyd Wright's designs are the absolute best architectural engineering designs ever. I don't agree. Your argument is somewhat a cross breed between a no true scot and strawman.We could always always always always look at an engineering piece, nitpick it a little, and say that it could have been engineered better, if not structurally then aesthetically. For the past year, I've been paying attention to minute details of my house and have found many flaws both structurally and aesthetically. Should I, then, assume that there was no engineer planning behind the whole thing?The other thing is your argument is based on the assumption that intelligent design "theory" must absolutely have an infinitely wise and knowledgable designer that decided to create everything perfectly. This is like demanding that every engineer and architect to design everything structurally and aesthetically perfect all their lives, and if you run into an architect that wanted to design and build his own house based on a theme that is neither structurally nor aesthetically perfect then you'd declare him non-existant.I've painted and worked on some parts of my house. Don't ever come into my house and demand perfection for every little detail. I could also easily point out that structures and artworks are designed and created based on previous designs and experiences. I could also as easily point out that buildings become structurally unsound eventually and some collapse over time. There's a reason why there's such a thing as maintainance. I could also just as easily point out that this sentence doesn't belong in the Intelligent Design forum What's wrong with a stupid intelligent designer? Now, you just sound like an angry child pissing and moaning about the flat nose he got from his daddy

Notice that I used the word "could" rather than "would".

O, sure. But considering an infinite number of forms takes an infinite amount of time, even for an infinitely knowledgable intelligent designer. Therefore, the designer would never reach the point where he chooses one of them. There's always one more to consider.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

unless there's a logical fallacy contained within your words, I dare say you have disproven that god made everything. why? he's still deciding what to make. but it doesn't look likely that he will ever make a decision. And who said we atheists needed evolution in order to have no god.(oops)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Hahahahaha. Never thought I'd see you walk right into a logic trap like this.Before I explain why, I first need to explain something about the human consciousness.A human can look at 1 object and without counting "1" in his head he can know that it's 1 object. He can look at 2 objects and know right away that it's 2 objects. He can do this up to 5 objects. But as soon as there are 6 objects, he would actually have to count in his head "1, 2, 3, 4, etc." There is a word to describe this aspect of the human consciousness, but it escapes me for now.The point is we can instantaneously perceive up to 5 objects and know that there are 5.But what about the objects themselves? Most people can instantaneously recognize 1 object given that it is recognizable to the observer. When I say recognize, I mean not having to go through the mental process of "hm... this one is a _____ and that one is a ______."But that's as far as human consciousness goes.You are assuming that the intelligent designer, although infinitely knowledgable, is operating at the same level of consciousness as we do. You can't do that. For all we know, the intelligent designer could perceive and recognize instantaneously an infinitely number of objects. It's a toss up.So, when you say "there's always one more to consider", you are assuming that the intelligent designer has to go through the mental process of counting and considering "1, 2, 3, 4, etc." like we do. You can't assume something like that.

All well and good, except that you are ignoring that the "Intelligent Designer" that creos are talking about is the lord god almighty. I dare say he would have considerably more expertise than whomever built your house, if he actually existed, that is. In any event, I would submit that any intelligence capable of creating all life on earth would know better than to have only one opening to be used for the intake of both nourishment and oxygen, with the resulting danger of choking and subsequent death.Now, of course the objection following this is that nobody in this thread has talked about who the designer is. But I don't come here and put my common sense aside and ignore reality. There are no atheists or agnostics arguing for creation. In fact, almost all creos are christian fundy types. And we know they aren't arguing for creationism out of a love for the purity of scientific inquiry.As for my nose, it's not flat, and I got it from my maternal grandfather. So there.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

KCB's contention is that DNA encodes the shape of bones, like some kind of genetic LightWave file. That's the contention that you described being "similarly overstated" to the idea that we know the amino acid substitutions for every three-letter codon.Do you see why your "correction", then, is not one that I take very seriously? If you can't tell the difference between a ludicrous claim based on ignorance and an informed truth told clumsily, it might behoove you not to take such a pedantic tone.An analogy: I could tell you exactly how the gasoline engine in your car works (assuming I had knowledge about your car.) There would be no necessary conceptual or technological breakthroughs necessary for me to have essentially perfect knowledge of the operating mechanism of your car.Your point is essentially that I still don't know where you're going to drive to, when you get in and get behind the wheel. Well, that's true. And there's no way for me to predict every single reaction a regulatory sequence might have to any concievable environment. That's also true.But given a regulatory sequence and an environment, there are no conceptual or technological breakthroughs needed to determine how the regulatory system works. It's just chemistry, and we're pretty knowledgeable about the chemistry. Figuring out how it works, what happens next, is just a matter of using tools we've already invented in an area that nobody's had the time yet to look at. Not a big deal - certainly not some kind of vast gulf of understanding that makes us describe DNA as a Mystery of the Ages. I think you do him way too much credit. His question is about how DNA, which encodes the shape of bones via some kind of shape-codon substitution, came about by natural selection and random mutation. It's a sufficient response to that question to point out that DNA does not encode shape, it encodes sequence; it's not a blueprint of bone shapes described in VRML, it's a macromolecule that stores amino acid sequences and manages their production.But, hey. I'm glad you're here to read his mind and tell us differently. Maybe you could help him phrase his question in a way that reflects scientific understanding of DNA and genetics instead of Discovery-channel descriptions of "the blueprint of life", and give the pedanticism a rest?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sure, but architects all design buildings. What you're suggesting is more like the designer of the Ford Mustang leaving Ford and joining the Navy to design submarines, and the submarine he designs has double-wishbone suspension, airbags, and a rear spoiler.Dean Kamen is the designer of both the kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter. I assure you that, when he designed the Segway, he didn't include any parts from kidney dialysis machines, because he was solving two different problems with those designs. Designers are not such fans of their own designs that they don't know when they're looking at a new problem that requires starting from scratch. Nobody here is asserting that FLW designed every building in the universe.

Intelligent design and creationism are two different things. What, it couldn't simply created us that way for amusement? That's not the point, though. No IDists (real ones, not the creos) claim to know who/what the designer is.

As far as I know, no IDists (again, the real ones not the creo ones) have ever made a strong claim that the intelligent designer is one single almighty super being. They've been clever enough to leave that portion blank.What if the intelligent designer is actually a team of flying spag monsters?