(May 20, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

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

Clouds form inevitably. Any cloud that forms will have the same function. This is definitely not the case if we are talking about biology and enzymes. Self-organizational models have failed to say that life inevitably forms. On top of that, life allows for intense communication. The analogy would be more adequate if you said that there had to be cloud 1 with a certain shape that could fit together with cloud 2 so that they could produce a signal that had the specific shape that allowed it to interact with cloud 3, which then binds to cloud 4, 5, and 6, which causes them to rain.

I am identifying features that are characteristic of intelligent design based on our experience. Electrical communication,sequential information, and the ability to process information are characteristics found in two places only: life and systems that we have designed. Intelligence is the only known cause capable of leading to these things. 

And yes on top of that I am extremely skeptical that evolution can lead to them.  I don't think you realize what you are requiring mutation and natural selection to do.

(May 20, 2016 at 8:31 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(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.

You do not need to prove that intelligence exists before you can conclude that an observed phenomenon is the result of intelligence. Again, what if SETI received a radio signal that transmitted the numbers of pi up to one thousand decimal places? According to you, they cannot conclude extraterrestrial intelligence because no such thing has ever been shown to be out there. 

And no, I am not positing a cause that has never been observed. We observe intelligent design at work every day. In fact, it is perfectly capable of leading to the type of systems seen in cells. We have even tampered with DNA as you say. So yes, intelligence is perfectly capable of modifying the genetic code, and this has been demonstrated. 

You say every single thing that we once thought to be the result of a mind has been shown to have a natural explanation. That is just not true. All the gaps that have been filled have been shown to have a natural explanation. But just because we know that there isn't a mind behind everything does not mean that there is not a mind behind anything. We still don't know the origin of the universe, the origin of life, how consciousness works, how the oxygen evolving complex of photosytem II manages to separate water. No one is saying that all gaps are God. Consciousness and the PSII almost definitely have natural explanations.

You say that there is nothing anywhere to show that mutation and natural selection are inadequate. That may be true; it is difficult to prove a negative. Please demonstrate to me that intelligence is inadequate. Rather than the opposition demonstrating that a mechanism is inadequate, the proponents must show that it is adequate. Even if they were both equally adequate (which they are not) we would still have a hard time telling which one actually happened.

(May 20, 2016 at 8:55 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 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!"

So with the discovery that snowflakes aren't the result of intelligence, we have officially eliminated intelligence as an explanation for EVERY single phenomena? I appreciate that you say you intended to be kind about it, but this statement actually offended me more than usual, essentially implying that I'm gullible and intellectually childish. I know that you guys are very proud to be the ones who aren't being fooled by nature like us ignorant Christians.

(May 20, 2016 at 9:58 pm)wiploc Wrote:

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

I don't really think they would use such strong metaphors in a college biochemistry textbook, but I guess it's possible. I still think they just think that it was designed by natural selection.

And I'm not going to go interview every biochemist

AAA. "Don't preach until people get mad at you. Live your life in such a way that people start to ask you- "How comes your so happy"".

God's question isnt about science, its about hard but idealistic life, which is why very few seriously trying to achive it. Its very expensive and equally valuable.

(May 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: 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.

How is evolution a falsifiable explanation for life's systems?

(May 21, 2016 at 12:33 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 9:58 pm)wiploc Wrote: 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.

I don't really think they would use such strong metaphors in a college biochemistry textbook, but I guess it's possible. I still think they just think that it was designed by natural selection.

And I'm not going to go interview every biochemist

Remember nothing is designed by natural selection; things evolved by natural selection.

(May 20, 2016 at 10:20 pm)wiploc Wrote:

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

Ok, well to put it simply: information is processed in the cell. The only other information processing system we have ever observed in the whole universe is something designed by intelligence. Because it is the only known cause, it is the best explanation. There may be a better explanation, but don't tell me it is circular reasoning to say that the only known adequate cause may be correct.

(May 20, 2016 at 10:23 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

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

Yeah, every engineer who ever lived working together could not do a better job, but YOU have the audacity to say that it is a poor design. People die because the system has degraded. When the DNA mutates, enzymes become misshapen and don't function properly. Then people lose a function and die. It mutates because we live such unhealthy lifestyles. Obesity, poor diet, lack of exercise, the intense number of chemicals in our environment, and many other factors lead to mutations. Are you saying that you want God to literally intervene to fix mutations?

(May 21, 2016 at 11:43 am)AAA Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 7:37 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Your evidence that a snowflake was designed?

Seriously? Does one of you want to define design, because I'm starting to think that none of you knows what it is. It was designed without intelligence;. Clearly it reflects a design as it is highly irregular and geometric.

No, it reflects order, not design. You simply are attempting to conflate the two. And, before you start spouting that order is evidence of desing, I'll point out that order arises from chaos all the fucking time. We see it in hurricanes, tornados and even the above snowflake example.