(May 20, 2016 at 7:28 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: By highly irregular, I take it you mean they have a high degree of nonuniformity or variation.  This is known as having high informational entropy according to Shannon's theory of information.  According to which, such structures deviate from that which would be expected by chance.  So this "highly unique" characteristic amounts to little more than a measure of how likely the structure is to occur  by chance.

Anything can happen by random processes, it's only a matter of how likely they are to occur by chance.  A horse could materialize in my living room.  There's nothing preventing it from happening by chance, just that it's highly improbable.  So the only thing you can realistically mean by "non-random" is too improbable to occur by chance.  Again, this is just a judgement based on the probability of a structure occurring by chance.

I don't know what "clearly purposeful" means.  Purpose relates to having a goal in mind.  How you can say that any biological structure has a 'clear' end in mind is simply more question begging language.  Perhaps structures have an end in mind, perhaps they don't.  Regardless, the appearance of a thing does not in itself dictate that there is such an end in mind.

So what your criteria boil down to is saying that a particular biological structure is too improbable to have occurred by chance.  But people who suggest abiogenesis and evolution are responsible for these structures aren't claiming that they occurred strictly by chance.  So your criterion embed a false dichotomy between chance and design.  Your criteria are little more than a claim as to how probable these structures could occur by natural process.  Claiming that some structure is 'too unique' or 'non-random' is simply saying that you don't believe evolution and / or abiogenesis can account for them.  That's nothing but unabashed incredulity.  Your incredulity, or anyone's, isn't an objective feature of a biological structure.  It's simply a subjective opinion.

Yeah, you're right that shannon information is just a measure of probability, but the information in DNA is not only improbable. It also has the impressive ability to lead to functional enzymes. 

It's pretty clear that there is an end in mind when glucagon binds to a membrane receptor. It leads to the activation of a G-protein, which activates adenylate cyclase, which produces cAMP, which activates protein kinase A, which activates phosphorylase kinase, which activates glycogen phosphorylase, which degrades glycogen into glucose so the body can respond to low blood glucose. It absolutely has a goal in mind. Obviously cells aren't conscious, but there is intention. I don't think it's subjective opinion to say that the cell intends to break down glycogen when glucagon is present.

The question was what objective features indicate design. Purpose isn't an objective feature of a biological organism, so all you're doing is introducing a red herring. Clouds have a purpose in the hydrological cycle if we are simply accepting purpose as a synonym for function. But nobody would argue that clouds are designed. Function is the role that a mechanical piece plays in the model of operation of a system. Evolution can result in biological structures playing roles in systems, so once again you've simply denied the role that evolution can play.

You aren't identifying features that characterize design, you're identifying things you find hard to believe are explained by evolution. That's not a feature of a biological structure. It's a measure of your skepticism concerning the capacity of evolution.

Do you have a measure of design other than improbability? For the reasons shown, improbability is insufficient as an indicator of design.

(May 20, 2016 at 5:58 pm)AAA Wrote: So we need to prove that the designer exists before we can say it may have been designed? That's illogical. There are people searching for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Do they have to prove that aliens exist before we can interpret a radio transmission showing a sequence of prime numbers as having an intelligent cause? NO. 

It is only a God of the gap if you assume that your answer is correct and thus has the gaps to be filled. When you say that I have no proof that the designer exists, why can't I just say you are arguing from materialism of the gaps? 

Why is it my responsibility to show that mutation and natural selection are inadequate? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to prove that it is adequate? 

Please explain why design is magic? Did the person who designed your laptop use magic? I sort of doubt it.

Yes, you do need to say a designer exists before you can say it may have been designed. It's illogical to say design without designer. If you have evidence of design, which cannot even potentially be explained by natural processes, then you might be on to something. If you have evidence of a process by which DNA could be tampered with by an outside intelligence, you might have deisgn (in the sense that you mean it). How you might demonstrate those, I haven't the foggiest.

You're positing a phenomenon which has never been observed in nature, but which does seem to exist in the imaginations of humans, rather like elves do. The difference between my "materialism of the gaps" (as you call it) and your idea is that every single thing we once thought was magical turned out to have a natural explanation, and we have not one single reason to suppose that non-natural explanations for natural phenomena will be discovered. That's why I keep calling your concept "magic".

We do prove that mutation changes a gene pool over each generation (along with some statistical factors, like genetic drift), and that Natural Selection has the effect of altering the direction of that change by favoring some changes over others, with each new generation.

There is nothing anywhere to suggest that these natural processes are "inadequate", except in the desperate wishes of those who want to think that some Intelligence (typically God or some other Higher Power) has done something to create us, rather than admitting we are the processes of random changes and nonrandom selection.

Like any other scientific phenomenon, even if you are correct in your assertions (I highly doubt it, but you might be), then you need to provide evidence that the phenomenon you're describing even occurs before even one person takes you seriously on the subject. Appeals to "looks like" and other "common sense" concepts are usually wrong.

Let me try to be a bit more kind about it, and explain why I used the example of snowflakes.

They do have the appearance of design, since each is unique and intricately crafted in beautiful patterns. If I did not know Atomic Theory, or even what an electron was (let alone what a covalent bond was, or that the oxygen "bent" the hydrogens because of two pairs of free non-bonding electrons) I might say that the snowflakes had to have a designer. We don't say anything like that, now, because we have discovered the mechanism for creating snowflakes.

What you are essentially doing, here, is looking at snowflakes under a (newly-invented) microscope in the year 1590, and saying "Look how complicated and amazing these snowflakes are!... Clearly, and intelligent Someone designed them individually!"

(May 20, 2016 at 10:37 am)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 8:21 pm)wiploc Wrote: Nonsense.  You made that up.

Ok, well my biochemistry textbook has chapters called: the molecular design of life, and basic concepts and design of metabolism.

Interesting.  I recommend reading it as metaphor.  Life is designed in the same sense that love is an art, in the same sense as an army marches on its stomach.   

In any case, you haven't shown that biochemists generally agree with your assertion.

.....

(May 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You're the prosecution. I'm the jury. Make your case and I'll consider it.

Ok, why is a system of electrical communication not considered evidence of intelligent design when the only known cause of such things is intelligence?

1. A question is not an argument.  If you have to resort to a question, that suggests that you haven't even formed an argument, that you're hoping the person you're talking to will create your argument for you.

2. Circular argument:  You are assuming that the only known cause of electrical communication is intelligent design because you are assuming that life was intelligently designed.

Straw: meet grasp.

For any scientific claim to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable.

What is the failure criteria here? What would indicate that some life form was not intelligently designed, and how do you know this? If you have no failure criteria, you are simply making an unecessary assumption.

If the claim is nothing more than a resemblance, then it's of absolutely no significance. I don't know who is supposed to be convinced, or of what. I imagine it's the self being convinced that such beliefs are rational by an equivocation of language.

(May 20, 2016 at 7:34 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I don't know, I cannot read minds. Where are you going with this?

Regardless, if your case consists largely or entirely of negative criticism of your opponent's case, let alone arguments from incredulity, we're not likely to have a very productive conversation.

Yeah, this conversation sucks. You won't answer any questions. If you're waiting for me to show you a video of God, we could be here a while.

No, he is inviting you, once again, to actually produce your argument. 

A question is not an argument.   If you can articulate an actual argument, we want to read it.

(May 20, 2016 at 4:41 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm)dyresand Wrote: Anyways AAA if we are intelligently created you would have downgraded the quality of everything in the known universe
tremendously. Then you would have to acknowledge that your god you believe in is not all that bright......

I don't follow. Why would it be downgraded if it were designed? And why would it mean God is not that bright?

(bolding is mine)

Because, if life on this planet is the result of design, it was an absolutely shit-ass designer. Billions of people have died because of stupid design errors that would have been trivial for an omnipotent designer to correct. If Ford did such a consistently shitty job designing their cars, they'd have been run out of business years ago.

(May 20, 2016 at 4:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Just tell me one characteristic of a designed sytems that life doesn't have

Someone to fix the design errors.