Summations Only

Regardless, it is implicit that ID must invoke the supernatural at some stage.

Really? Where?

Designing the initial genomes to bias evolution in planned trajectories is just such a way to influence the course of evolution (myself and others have discussed this before on this site, if you will recall).

And, when it comes to molecular machinery that may have been present in the LUCA, such as bacterial flagella, then all the nanotechnologists would simply have to engineer the flagellar parts in the genomes.

Just to make my position clear, by the way:

I don't advocate the teaching of ID in schools, in any way whatsoever. That'd be the wrong thing to do. But it's not because (a) ID invokes the supernatural (it doesn't), or (b) it's pseudoscience, etc. It's because ID is not sufficiently developed to be a rigorous hypothesis or theory. There are plenty of hypotheses out there that aren't nearly as rigorous as the modern evolutionary synthesis, and these shouldn't really be in the school room, and the same holds ID. It's silly to push for ID in schools when there are dozens of other equally rigorous hypotheses out there (not all in biology, of course). That's really why I'm in this forum: I'm trying to glean ideas from all of you to steadily develop the ID hypothesis.

You have NEVER presented the model or method the asserted designer uses influence evolution.

It's called engineering a genome with biological parts that will later be used by future organisms, and evolutionary processes will build on these parts, shaping the course of evolution. There are other mechanisms here, too, like cytosine deamination, but I'll let that discussion wait for another day.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

You have NEVER presented the model or method the asserted designer uses influence evolution.

It's called engineering a genome with biological parts that will later be used by future organisms, and evolutionary processes will build on these parts, shaping the course of evolution. There are other mechanisms here, too, like cytosine deamination, but I'll let that discussion wait for another day.

The way to develop Intelligent Design is to bring the designer in so that the designer can demonstrate the model of how evolution is influenced.

Except that:

a. I have already provided you with a mechanism to shape the course of evolution.

b. What if the designer(s) is extinct?

c. Where do you propose to search for this designer first? Mars? Or the Andromeda galaxy? Possibly, if we sent a man to the Pleiades we'd find the designer? Where in the galaxy do you think we should look for the designers first? I'm curious.

d. We don't need to have the designer(s) present to infer intelligent design.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Until you present the model showing the method and process the asserted designer uses you have nothing but word salad.

Please see my response above, and respond specifically to the points I made. I mean, c'mon, you might want to try to discuss this without repeating the same thing over and over again, without considering exactly what I said.

Sorry jar, but as usual your tone is aggressive and confrontational, and not really in the spirit of objective discussion, so I'll not discuss this with you. Take care!

Genome engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_engineering

SETI detects a radio signal from outer space consisting of the first 500 prime numbers. Through high-tech analysis, they determine that this is not noise from our own planet. They infer design. Do they have the lab that made the machine that generated the radio signal?

SETI has not asserted that they have received such a signal.

I didn't say they did.

If and when they do, yes, they will have to present a convincing model of how the signal was generated.

That wasn't the issue I brought up. I specifically asked if they would have to have the lab where the machinery was made that generated the signal before inferring design.

Incredulous Design is still just a joke.

I'm talking about intelligent design, jar. Why must you label it with silly names and stuff? I know you mean well, but c'mon, you don't have to be even a little bit snarky. Just saying

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Unfortunately, the SETI scientists disagree with you. They don't think they'd need to lab, the tools, etc. The same goes for cryptographers. They don't need the machine that was needed that encoded a message before inferring that an apparently random string of symbols was in fact deliberately arranged. You're basically doing away with SETI science, cryptography, archaeology (you don't need to know how a pyramid was constructed to know that it was deliberately designed), and the folks who detect fraud, in say, the lottery (you don't need to know how the fraud was carried out to know that something fishy is going on with this guy who has won 50 times in a row).

Of course you need to know how it was done.

Why don't you take that up with the SETI scientists, cryptographers, and archaeologists? You're basically doing away with a whole bunch of peer-reviewed papers which rely on the fact that you don't have to know how X was designed in order to infer design. So, really, I have nothing to worry with your idea since I have many, many, many scientists to back up my methodology of inferring design.

Genomicus point is simply that it might be possible to have indirect evidence for a designer.

Correct. I disagree with the use of specified complexity to infer design, and irreducible complexity in itself is not a signal of design since non-teleological processes can produce IC systems.

Arnold, L. Transit Light-Curve Signatures Of Artificial Objects. The Astrophysical Journal, 627:534–539 (2005).

Here's the abstract:
“The forthcoming space missions, able to detect Earth-like planets by the transit method, will a fortiori also be able to detect the transits of artificial planet-sized objects. Multiple artificial objects would produce light curves easily distinguishable from natural transits. If only one artificial object transits, detecting its artificial nature becomes more difficult. We discuss the case of three different objects (triangle, two-screen, and louver-like six-screen) and show that they have transit light curves distinguishable from the transits of natural planets, either spherical or oblate, although an ambiguity with the transit of a ringed planet exists in some cases."

Specific points the author makes:

"Current Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) programs concentrate on the search for radio or optical laser pulses emissions (Tarter 2001). We propose here an alternative approach for a new SETI: considering that artificial planet-size bodies may exist around other stars, and that such objects always transit in front of their parent star for a given remote observer, we may thus have an opportunity to detect and even characterize them by the transit method, assuming these transits are distinguishable from a simple planetary transit..."

A point here, too:
"We have shown that detecting an artificial object from its transit lightcurve shape requires an excellent photometric accuracy."

You see, according to this paper, we can infer that an object is artificial based on its transit lightcurve shape.

More:
"Transit of artificial objects also could be a mean for interstellar communication from Earth in the future. We therefore suggest to future human generations to have in mind, at the proper time, the potential of Earth-size artificial multiple structures in orbit around our star to produce distinguishable and intelligent transits." [emphasis not added]

Hmm. Looks like these shapes of artificial objects would produce an intelligent transit. Now, please email the author of this paper that before inferring the artificial nature of one of these objects, you have to know how the object was designed. Will you do that, please?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.