quote:

I have a question vaguely related to all of this.

All forms of information that we know of require matter or energy to exist. Information being the purposeful, meaningful arrangement of matter or energy.

The only places that energy and matter can exist is within the space-time continuum, being that they require the laws within space-time to function.

quote:

Intelligence could be describe as the ability to store, retrieve, manipulate, and comprehend information. Interaction with matter, energy, or the fundamental forces has (in all known cases) required matter, energy, or other forces.
That is, in order to be intelligent, one must have intimate interactions with matter and energy. In order to contain, store, retrieve, or manipulate information, a being must be made of, or contain, matter and energy.

quote:

Further, the all of these actions require time in order to occur. Without time, even if information were present, nothing could happen to that information. In order for information to be manipulated, it must exist inside of time.
For instance, if a human existed outside of time, they could be said to be potentially intelligent (requiring only the addition of time in order to be able to manipulate information), but they could not be said to be actually intelligent, because they wouldn't be able to currently manipulate information.

quote:

If God is non-physical, and outside of time, how can he contain, or manipulate any information? The follow up question obviously being, "How can God be described as intelligent if he is non-physical, non-energy, and exists outside of time?"

quote:

Not necessarily that only cells can cause technology, but merely that cells are the only things we know of that have created technology.

quote:

However, for an even greater number of cases (all life) the cause of origin is unknown.
While scientists have tried to create cellular life from its chemical components, they have (to my knowledge) failed thus far. Scientists have also attempted to generate life by merely placing all of the necessary components in favorable conditions, in an attempt to create simple cellular life. They have (to my knowledge) failed thus far.

quote:

From this we can make a few statements:
1. All information systems apart from cells has arisen due to cellular lifeforms. (Either directly, as in a person building a computer, or indirectly, as in a computer generating information.)

quote:

2. No known intelligence has thus far been successful in creating cellular life.

quote:

3. No known unintelligent process has thus far been successful in producing cellular life.

Conclusion-
There is no known process, whether intelligently guided or not, that has produced cellular life.

Further testing of each suggested method for producing cellular life (intelligent and non-intelligent processes) must be further researched before one may draw a definitive conclusion as to the origins of cellular life. (And thus, indirectly, to the origins of all information systems.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Why is it the overwhelming majority of species that have existed are extinct? Are they the designers failed attempts?

Well, to say that you would have to establish how long does a species has to exist before it would be considered a 'success '(difficult, as 'success' isn't a scientific measure, but a subjective one), and why the human designation of 'species' is the criteria one should use to demark the forms of life in consideration for that measure.

quote:

To what purpose would an intelligent designer create and destroy entire orders of animals and plants as well as millions of species if not have used them as intermediate steps in the development of more evolved organisms? Pets? Food? Personal entertainment?

quote:

If the Intelligent Designer has His own classification system, He didn't choose to inform me of it so I have to use the only classification system available to express my thoughts. Since species classifies those animals and plants that are capable of sharing each others genes and reproducing new individuals with those shared genes, it is likely the Intelligent Designer would have an analogous classification in His system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, scientists have failed repeatedly to produce a cell from unguided means; when it comes to putting together the neccesary components intentionally, they have seen some success.

But the question really is, what are cells? And they are in essence information driven machines. Such things have only been produced by intelligence, and it is reasonable to infer that cellular machinery has as well, even if we haven't as yet produced that particular machine.

I mean we haven't produced an interstellar spaceship either, but if we found one, we wouldn't assume it couldn't be the product of intelligence, only that the mind that produced it was more sophisticated than our own.

quote:

From this we can make a few statements:
Begs the question; all information systems and machinery have been produced by cellular forms that have intelligence of some sort; none have been produced by 'cells' alone. And there is no evidence that intelligence itself resides within a cell.

quote:

Again, this doesn't in and of itself matter - if it did, you would have to conclude when the first cell was produced that ID is true - and I know you won't accept that conclusion.

quote:

And there are other factors:

[1]Cells ave information systems - that are only known to come from intelligence.

[2]Cells have machinery - which is only known to come from intelligence.

[3]Life is differentiated by the novel modification of genetic codes - which has been observably done through intelligence

quote:


Well, again, based on your logic you would be forced to conclude that when an intelligence does produce life, ID is demonstrated. So based on this logic (which I think is silly, but will go with for your sake) we can say that genetic manipulation, as well as the production and introduction of DNA materials into a cell were the product of intelligent design, as were themachinery and information systems contained therein, since all these have been produced by intelligence.

quote:

There are examples of complete, functioning cells having been created 'from scratch'?
If not, then there has been 'some success' towards an abiogentic cell. As you're aware, scientists have been able to re-create various parts of cells simply by creating the proper environments and letting chemistry do it's work. This is a far step from actually creating a cell.

quote:

The problem with your spaceship analogy is that we know that spaceships are created by intelligent beings. We have seen spaceships created by intelligent beings. We know how spaceships are created, we have the mechanisms. We know that they have a purpose, and we know what that purpose is. We know that space-ships can not arise naturally, as they contain synthetic materials.

quote:

Most of these things are not true for cells. We have never seen cells created by intelligent beings. Apart from division/reproduction, we have some idea on how to create cells, but the process is not yet complete. More importantly, to my mind, is that cells, as a whole, seem to have no real purpose. Many cells, or groups of cells, work at cross purposes to each other. They work towards no greater goal than their own reproduction, or the reproduction of the group.

quote:

While I would agree that intelligence doesn't seem to reside withing a single cell, it does seem to exist within groups of specific types of cells. It might be more accurate to say that it seems to exist within the connections between specific types of cells. Reducing the number of cells of specific types/locations, or the connections between those cells, of say, a human brain, effectively reduces the intelligence that that brain is capable of demonstrating.

quote:

It would certainly be one piece of evidence towards the hypothesis. It would, in and of itself, not convince me, but it would be a step towards changing my mind.
If, after this development, ID managed to continue gather evidence, while abiogenesis remained stagnant, I would be forced to make the concession that ID is more likely an answer than abiogenesis.

quote:

[1] Cells have very odd and complex information systems, the kinds of which human intelligence has only been able to weakly mimic, manipulate, and interpret. No known intelligence is capable of producing cellular information systems.

quote:

[2]Cells have very odd machinery, the kind of which has never been uniquely produced by any known intelligence. We have managed to mimic and manipulate some cellular machinery, but are a far cry from being able to uniquely engineer something so interdependent a system as a cell.

quote:

[3]While known intelligence has been able to manipulate genetics to some degree, no known intelligence has ever produced any unique system with anywhere near the capability of the genetic code.

quote:

Not at all, these are mere mimicries. These things demonstrate that it is possible for intelligence to do such things, not that intelligence was the one to do them when life arose on Earth.

quote:

Mankind has managed to produce electricity, but this does not prove that lightning is the product of an intelligence.
However, if someone wished to prove that lightning was the product of an intelligence, the first step towards that goal would be to prove that it is possible for intelligence produce this phenomena. There would be much more work to do after that, but it would be the first necessary step.

quote:

The same applies to abiogenesis and ID. For abiogenesis, it must be demonstrated that the production of a proto-cell through natural means is possible. Once this is done, there is more work to be done to give sufficient weight to the idea that this is the way that things happened, but this first step is necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, no such ‘parts’ have been created – in fact the unguided development of cellular structures has been a dismal failure.

quote:

Well, you miss the point of the analogy; the cell is composed of information system and nano-technology; we know these are created by intelligent beings. We know they have a purpose, and we know what the purpose is. And we know that cells do not, in any observation, arise naturally. It would be no more reasonable to assume they did than it would be to suppose that a million year old spaceship buried on the moon did.

quote:

Actually, we are full capable of producing the information systems and machinery of the cells, we simply haven’t built an entire one from scratch. But if we had discovered someone had built a supercomputer superior to our own, the fact that we had difficulty reverse engineering it would not lead to the conclusion that it arose naturally; in fact, it would lead us away from that conclusion, as the technological sophistication of the cell should.

quote:

Actually there is not a single shred of evidence that intelligence (the sort that considers will, self-awareness, planning, and carrying out plans) resides in a ‘group’ of cells. There is evidence that altering the cognitive mechanisms can alter how such intelligence is expressed (just as disconnecting your keyboard will affect the writing of your posts), but it is nonsense for example to say that if one simple gets the right cells together they will beginning writing sonnets and building spaceships.

quote:

No, your science is a product of your metaphysical beliefs; there is as much evidence that cells do not, and cannot arise apart from intelligence as there is that no information system or machinery can.

quote:

While I will agree with you on the complex part (which is more evidence for intelligence) they aren’t at all ‘odd’ – in fact they are incredibly optimized and sophisticated; which is part of the reason we are increasingly striving to mimic them.

quote:

Only materialists use complexity and technological sophistication as an argument against intelligence; everyone else recognizes it as evidence for a higher intelligence.

quote:

Actually, we are fully capable of creating DNA from scratch, as well as manipulating genetic systems at whim. And we are in the process of building DNA based computers. This is just wrong.

quote:

Not at all, these are mere mimicries. These things demonstrate that it is possible for intelligence to do such things, not that intelligence was the one to do them when life arose on Earth.

quote:

Again, you are making self-contradictory statements; the knowledge of producing electricity did nothing to advance the idea that lightening was the product of intelligence. And unlike biological processes, lightening is not a purposeful activity driven by information systems and machinery. If it were then there would be good reason to suppose it the product of intelligence.

quote:

The same applies to abiogenesis and ID. For abiogenesis, it must be demonstrated that the production of a proto-cell through natural means is possible. Once this is done, there is more work to be done to give sufficient weight to the idea that this is the way that things happened, but this first step is necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

The information systems and nano-tech we know of are designed for very specific purposes. These purposes are, generally, readily apparent. Cells, as such, have no obvious purpose except replication of further cells. They serve no other visible purpose. We don't see information systems or technology that serve no other purpose than self-propagation.
If a being created cells, we wouldn't necessarily be able to discern the purpose of the device, this I concede. However, if cells differ in this regard from known intelligently created systems, then this, in my mind, casts at least an iota of doubt that an intelligence created them.

quote:

The computer serves a purpose. Namely, computation for some being. Any supercomputer will also, likely, contain materials that are simply impossible to form naturally (super-refined metals, for instance). Further, a supercomputer found on the moon wouldn't look at all like it was even possible to form it from the various rocks and minerals on the moon.
Cells are formed mostly of naturally occuring chemicals. Methane, Ammonia, Water, Hydrogen sulfide, Carbon dioxide/monoxide, and Phosphate are all major components of cells. All of these (to my knowledge) arise naturally.

The same can not be said of a computer.

quote:

]
Incredibly optimized?
Let's take neurons as an example. I agree that they are amazing an complex in their design and function. They are far from optimal for their task, however. The only thing a neuron has on circuitry as far as speed is concerned is its number of connections. The process of transferring their electro-chemical signals is thousands of times slower than any modern circuit. What circuits lack in connectivity they are quickly making up for with sheer speed. Supercomputer are expected to out-compute human brains by around 2013.

quote:


I meant that they are extremely odd, if they were designed. Apart from serving no apparent overall goal other than cellular replication, they are built in very strange ways. The genetic code alone contains many redundancies, as well as a bit of (apparently) extraneous information.

quote:


If one wanted to theorize that intelligence produces lightning, a very good first step would be demonstrating that this is at all possible. If one demonstrates this, it does not prove that intelligence produces lightning, merely that it is possible. It is a piece of supporting evidence. One must then add further supporting evidence that intelligence does indeed produce lightning.
While the theory that intelligence produces lightning would be discredited by another theory that more completely accounted for all relevant evidence, the demonstration that intelligence can produce electricity would still have been a necessary first step in demonstrating that intelligence produces lightning, even if this hypothesis is eventually disproved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
R_S, your posts are difficult to follow because your "quotes" aren't formatted quite right. A lot of times I don't know if I'm reading your comments or the quote you're commenting on.

quote:

If it were the case that the cell's purpose couldn't be determined, that wouldn't change the fact it contains evidence of intelligence. A 6 year old might not know what a telephone poll is for, but he can tell the difference between it and a tree because he sees evidence of intelligence. You can ask the child in whatever language he can understand which one was designed and which one grew, and he'll probably get it right. But cells in our body do have purposes that we can describe. They might not serve a purpose directly to God, but they do serve a purpose for us. We know the purpose of skin cells, liver cells, neurons, rods/cones, etc. They do have a purpose far displaced from simply reproducing after its own kind.

quote:

Your argument is a bit discontinuous, you're naming refined materials for the computer and then simple chemicals for the cell. I can go to a lab and pick up all of those chemicals, throw them in a blender with some pencil led, and nothing is going to grow in there. There are very complex enzymes and proteins that exist to refine these chemicals into complex chemicals that may or may not be found in life. Let's be honest, there is nothing in the computer that does not exist in the dirt. We refine that stuff to make it suit our needs in the computer. There is also nothing in the cell that does not exist in the dirt. It is manipulated by enzymes and concentration gradients to make cell components. So we who are intelligent are doing the same thing that this naturally arising cell does.

quote:

I hear these kinds of arguments a lot, especially with the eye, which people say is poorly designed because they could have done a better job with such and such an aspect. My laptop is optimized for a powerful computing power with a relatively small size. This means that I pay a lot for extra batteries because small but well charged batteries are not cheap. My laptop would NOT be capable of doing the same kind of computing that a server can! Therefore I come to you and say, "My laptop is optimized" but you say "Pshaw! Look at what this computer can do!" and as you motion to Google's servers you can hear the things buzz with their computing speed. Our Neurons do not have straight copper wire connections running through them, yes. But they are very fast. They can calculate the trajectory of an incoming object, compute the position where it will be 5 feet from the ground, send signals to move your body to that position, calculate where your hands would have to be to catch it, and move your body to the in-zone to score a touchdown. We are benefactors of a process that can be regulated. Chemicals can interfere with our neural pathways to speed them up, slow them down, or just make them do things a little differently.

quote:

Extraneous information and redundancies are finding more and more purpose in the genetic code. One might consider abandoning this line of arguments before he or she runs out of examples to point to.

quote:

I think I see where you're going. Someone might have thought that lightening was caused by some gods to smite its enemies, but the difference is that cells show signs of intelligence whereas lightening simply goes from the highest potential to the lowest potential. We can create lightening/electricity, which demonstrates that lightening arises both naturally and due to intelligence.

quote:

If you wish to demonstrate that cells are intelligently designed, a good first step is demonstrating this is possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

Except that cells seem to have originated from a single event. Since then, various types of cells work directly at cross purposes with each other. Many diseases are caused by cells attacking other cells. Other cells go cancerous and destroy the cells they previously worked well. Viruses aren't cells, but they're similar enough to life for the same to apply.

Granted, each of these individually have the same goal of self-propagation, but many of the work against each other.

I don't know of any other inventor who designs a single product to destroy or subvert itself. Not only is it idiotic from a design standpoint, but if there is any real goal, then the product is hindering itself.
If cells were intelligently designed, they must have been a beta test of the product. Perhaps the finished product is somewhere in the alpha-centauri system.

quote:


Most of these enzymes aren't speculated to have been in earlier cells though, but seem to have been later developments. From the very first computer, refined materials were required.

quote:

Indeed. I'm not arguing that cells do their jobs well.
I'm merely saying that the same jobs can, and will, be done much better by our own technology within a few decades. If we, with our limited intelligence can design such things, how can a superior intelligence have produced inferior design?

Further, I wouldn't exactly use current technology as examples of optimization. They're good, no doubt, but far from optimal. If Moore's law holds true, a single $1000 laptop computer by the year 2050 will be able to outcompute the entire current human race. If something roughly the size of a brain is capable of such speeds (even if it's just theoretically), then you can't really say that cells are optimized for their jobs.

Moreover, many of the 'calculations' our brain performs aren't calculations at all. Your brain doesn't do calculus when it needs to calculate where a ball will be in order for you to catch it. The results of the brain's calculations are quite imprecise. This is especially demonstrated when one misplaces their hand, and they catch the ball with their face. Or when your body over-compensates for your moments, and you trip.

quote:

The redundancies do serve a purpose. They replace the original when the original becomes corrupted. However, why would you place in redundancies unless you knew your system was going to fail. If you knew the system was going to fail, why not simply fix the problems in the first place?
The whole process isn't indicative of an intelligent design to me.

Much of the 'extraneous' information has been show to be useful. I don't think that all of it will prove to be useful though. I mean, why do humans need the genetic code for tails? Why do chickens need the genetic code for teeth?

quote:


The idea that cells show signs of intelligence is what is in contention. Declaring that this is so by fiat doesn't work for me. I agree that my analogy is incomplete, but the basic concept still holds. If you wish to demonstrate that cells are intelligently designed, a good first step is demonstrating this is possible.