Intelligent Design

[AAA]

---

I am comparing it to everything we know about the abiotic world. We don't see nucleotides organizing themselves into a purposeful sequence. We barely see them at all. We don't see amino acids organizing themselves. We don't see mutations increasing the information content in genomes.

 Do you agree that life looks designed? Do you agree that the cell does things that require the specific action of proteins working together? Would you rather have the body you have now, or let all the best engineers who have ever lived collaborate to create you a new one without all the crappy design that you guys have been going on about? Do you think they could do a better job? Do you deny that the theory of evolution has a lot of holes? Do you honestly think these holes will be filled in? Why do you require hard evidence for design while not requiring it for the theory of evolution, yet not count the fine tuning of the universe or the intricate activity of the genetic code?

---

I don't know what would count as evidence for intelligent design in the cell if tRNA, attenuation, viral capsid structure, telomeres/telomerase, p53, cyclins, kinases, immune system functioning, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate activities that go on in the bodies of living organisms don't. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

I added the "don't" to clarify what I think you meant.


I have a mother and a son.
I am not exactly like my mother because of chance recombinations of genes.
I am not exactly like my son because of chance recombinations.
We represent only three generations out of untold thousands and billions replicated across the globe.

Which of us represents the design of your hypothetical designer?
If you say all of us, you are playing Texas sharpshooter with your data.

Exactly what is the design and how do you know this.
Are you suggesting that the interactions between bio-molecules are the underlying design  with us the result? Between atomic and subatomic particles?  Molecules do what molecules do. At what point do you think we stop being physics and become designed?
I recommend you to study carefully the "Very Strong Anthropic Principle" which states that;

"[T]he entire Purpose of the Universe is to make possible a being that will live in England, an island off the coast of France, and spend his time writing Discworld novels."

Because you have no stronger claim to purpose in molecular activity than does Pratchett.

Rocks and sticks don't have those qualities. You lost all credibility on every scientific topic ever due to your ignorance and false claim. Plus what was false about me saying that you need a system to harness energy in order to work against entropy?

Plenty of dead natural systems fit your description.
As the intention of Gaia is to purify water at the surface of the ocean near the mouths of rivers, energy from the sun is harnessed to remove salt from this water via evaporation which then condenses and falls inland to flow out through the mentioned rivers.  The purified water is of lower specific entropy than the salty ocean.
When you get to pick your desired outcome after the event, it is easy to make observed data fit your preconceptions.  The trick is picking out what is going to happen beforehand.

Why did you add the don't?

I don't know which phenotype is the original design, but the point is that I think the evidence of the genetic code is more consistent with a top down formation of the code than a bottom up. You seem to want me to put forth a completely coherent theory, while your perfectly content holding on to the theory of evolution with its holes.

Yes my description of non-designed things isn't perfect, but I don't think that there are plenty of nonliving things that fit the description.