[littleWolf]

At present, there are no valid arguments and no evidences against modern evolutionary theory. Anyone with a detailed understanding of the theory, and without an agenda of denial, would be able to see that.

The 'God-of-the-gaps' arguments are easily dismissed by evolutionary theory and basic logic.

There is no evidence of  "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.

Such statements are indeed far too broad to address with any validity, certainly not in a short post.  They are incredibly arrogant.  No significant claim was made in this most recent reply to the thread; thus, there has been no significant reply.  The original post here was simply inquiring as to the explanation for the behaviors of the yucca moth.  The logic springing from evolutionary theory is not capable of such an explanation for this, nor many other inter-dependent plant/animal relationships and behaviors.  So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory. 

And even if it did exist, it would explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions: Who created the creator? How does the creator create? etc.

Can we work to identify the genetic encoding of such behavior?  What then, the origin of that genetic encoding?  If one question leading to more questions is a "problem" with creationism, is it a blight that the same "problem" is shared by evolutionism?  Or all science, for that matter?  Isn't that the fun of science?  Always more to discover... Questions, questions, questions.  What questions does either theory attempt to answer?  Neither provide absolutely provable answers.  Both require faith.

Any reasonable discussion should automatically exclude a creator entity as a possibility.

To begin demanding the exlusion of certain possibilities is to surrender to ignorance, I'm afraid.  We'd still be sacrificing our children to Molech's fire, hoping for a better harvest next year.  Be reasonable?  Yes.  Be ignorant?  No!  Bury our heads in the sand and pretend that belief in God is somehow a sham that's been pulled on the masses from the beginning of time?  That all people of faith (including many a great scientist) are fools?  Let's not be hasty.  If someone wants to postulate that a "creator entity" is a possibility, does that demand our investigation as to the "why" of the yucca moth come to a grinding halt?  I would hope not - our desire for discovery demands better of us!  Who knows what we'll find!

I wish the great biologist, Asyncritus, was still around to post a few of the world's wonders from time to time, rather than having been removed (probably thanks to people who didn't like the fact that a few of those wonders didn't fit the mold of their own theory!).  Such elitist thought-control is paramount to book burning!  Let's embrace the anomalies and examine their cause, not complain about agendas and question motives!  We're scientists, here - not blithering emotional whiners!

[Madidus_Scientia]

So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory. 

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of how evolution works.

Just as gravity is a fact. Our theory of how gravity works is our best explanation of how gravity works. And its "just a theory"

In science, a theory is the highest possible status any explanation can attain. And in order for a theory to remain a theory, it must not conflict with any evidence or observations. Evolution doesn't, which is why it remains a "just a theory".

The original post here was simply inquiring as to the explanation for the behaviors of the yucca moth.  The logic springing from evolutionary theory is not capable of such an explanation for this, nor many other inter-dependent plant/animal relationships and behaviors.  So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory.

Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. I agree that religion has no place in a scientific discussion.

[Ophiolite]

Surely we can discuss objections to scientific theory without being accused of being religious can't we?

Certainly, but not if we then use religious dogma to formulate or justify those objections. That's reasonable, wouldn't you say?

It seems to me that he is saying, 'Here with instinct is a marvellous thing which evolutionary theory cannot accommodate, and THEREFORE there must be a God who did it because no other explanation has been given.'
 
It is a valid argument against Darwinian theory but is not proof of God.

I quite fail to see how this is a valid argument against Darwinian theory. Perhaps you could elaborate. The only thing that appears to be in contention is the precise pathway by which the instinctive behaviour arose. The general means by which it arose is the usual marriage of germ cell mutation and natural selection. The current absence of detailed explanations merely reflects the current insufficiency of research in the relevant areas.

One theory that should be taken into account in any reasonable open discussion is that there may be a Creator God.

Why should this be taken into account in a discussion on evolution? The character and diversity of life is explicable by evolutionary theory. Why introduce an unnecessary complication?

We can't dismiss it out of hand just because we don't like it!

I agree that some people dismiss it out of hand for this reason. That is invalid. But others reject it for the reason noted above - it is superfluous.

There is no evidence of  "design" in the universe.

There are observations for which arguably the simplest explanation is design. Perhaps you are using a peculiar definition of evidence.

There are no valid reasons that a creator should exist.

What is the valid reason the universe should exist? 

There is no evidence that it does exist.

I see you are still having difficulty with the meaning of evidence.

And even if it did exist, it would explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions: Who created the creator? How does the creator create? etc.

Science, in answering any one question, nearly always raises several more, so your objection her is specious.

[BenV]

I wish the great biologist, Asyncritus, was still around to post a few of the world's wonders from time to time, rather than having been removed (probably thanks to people who didn't like the fact that a few of those wonders didn't fit the mold of their own theory!).  Such elitist thought-control is paramount to book burning!  Let's embrace the anomalies and examine their cause, not complain about agendas and question motives!  We're scientists, here - not blithering emotional whiners!

Asynchritus was banned because he refused to listen to facts, logic and reason - he had already made up his mind, and refused to engage in discussion.  As this is a discussion forum, this was frustrating and detrimental to other members of the forum.

There's no elitist thought control going on.

[littleWolf]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of how evolution works.

As usual, this discussion is hampered by our inadequate language.  We need far too many words to qualify / explain / justify our statements.  I will try not to demand or expect too much of the statements of others, as we're all limited by this unfortunate constraint. 

We would all benefit (the writers and the readers) from some additional clarification, though.  Such a statement as this is quite broad - "Evolution is a fact."  Is this statement in regard to microevolution a la moths in England?  Macroevolution a la amoebas to humans?  Those subjects are quite different, most would agree.  And as usual, humans have a difficulty transitioning from the micro to the macro. 

Just as gravity is a fact. Our theory of how gravity works is our best explanation of how gravity works. And its "just a theory"

And of course, exceptions have been found historically to our explanations for the behavior of gravity (e.g., Newton's theories being superceded by Einstein's).  So when you say "Evolution is a fact," I assume you're talking about some minor facet of evolution which has been observed, not the entire scheme.  In other words, only very small bits of evolution have been observed to actually occur - the rest is inferred from fossils, etc. - each inference bearing its own inherent uncertainties (thus keeping evolution theoretical, overall).  To say "Evolution is a fact" seems quite broad to me, and worthy of some explanation. 

In science, a theory is the highest possible status any explanation can attain. And in order for a theory to remain a theory, it must not conflict with any evidence or observations. Evolution doesn't, which is why it remains a "just a theory".

I guess this is where the divide occurred between the camp of Asyncritus and the camp of evolution.  Some will turn a blind eye to evidence which conflicts with the theory of evolution, or dismiss it as unrelated; while others see that evidence as demanding further investigation.  Had Einstein and his friends ignored the minor perturbance in the orbit of Mercury, we might not have the theory of relativity! 

In other words, even though Newton's theory of gravity solves 99.9% of the problem, it still is not fundamentally correct.  That "phenomenon" of the disturbance in orbits (and other things we can think of now) indicated a flaw in Newton's theory.  It is quite fair to point out flaws in the theory of evolution which demand we go back to the drawing board.  Darwin's observations were compelling, to be sure - the facts which he observed have led to changes in our understanding of the way the natural world operates, and we shouldn't turn a blind eye to his work nor the work which has been built upon it.  But we must acknowledge he provided no real answers to the question of the origin of life.  There remains that work to be done, if we're still unsure of the answer.

Asynchritus was banned because he refused to listen to facts, logic and reason - he had already made up his mind, and refused to engage in discussion.  As this is a discussion forum, this was frustrating and detrimental to other members of the forum.

Incidentally, I found him - he's writing a blog now - newbielink:http://www.got.to/belligerentdesign [nonactive]

Regardless of your feelings towards him, we must admit that he introduces a confounding fact to the theory of classical macroevolution, one which demands investigation.  One which may be "explained" by other various theories - that a Creator made the moth this way, that the genetic code of the moth simultaneously developed the myriad instinctive behaviours (maybe we call this "Spontaneous Temporally Unrestrained Population Interdependence Development?"), or by some other theory.  The classical theory of evolution, which involves small changes within a species leading to the formation of new species over time, does not adequately explain the instinctive behaviors of the moth. 

We must carve out the facts (observed phenomena) from the faith (often the theory, or the "how" of those phenomena).  The fact is that the Yucca Moth shows peculiar (wonderful, indeed!) instinctive behaviors.  In theorizing "how," Asyncritus seems confident of his answer, one built on faith - in which it is hard to poke holes - that a Creator encoded those requirements into the genes of the Yucca Moth.  Others are content to adhere faithfully to a theory which does not adequately explain the observed fact, or to make as broad a statement as those of faith:  "Evolution is a fact" (where "evolution" refers to classical macroevolutionary theory) is on par with "God did it."  Thus the choice exists for people as to which camp to join.  But we must acknowledge that at some point, everyone is making a leap of faith...

[Madidus_Scientia]

It is a fact that species evolve over time. The theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how species evolve. If you take the time to learn the subject you will find the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Such a statement as this is quite broad - "Evolution is a fact."  Is this statement in regard to microevolution a la moths in England?  Macroevolution a la amoebas to humans?  Those subjects are quite different, most would agree.  And as usual, humans have a difficulty transitioning from the micro to the macro.

It is in regard to every living organism on Earth. It can be shown by sequencing the genomes of any 2 species that they will share a common ancestor.

I guess this is where the divide occurred between the camp of Asyncritus and the camp of evolution.  Some will turn a blind eye to evidence which conflicts with the theory of evolution, or dismiss it as unrelated; while others see that evidence as demanding further investigation.

Go ahead, show us this evidence which conflicts with evolution. Thousands of biologists will be keen to see it.

Had Einstein and his friends ignored the minor perturbance in the orbit of Mercury, we might not have the theory of relativity!

You set up a good example for me. Gravity is a fact - all bodies attract one another. Newtons theory was the best theory there was to explain this fact. Einstiens theory explains it even better, and succeeds Newton's theory. This is what we do in science. If a better explanation is found, that becomes the new theory. The current theory of evolution has evolved (pardon the pun) since Darwin's time as more information was brought to light. Maybe more evidence will come to light to cause further modification of the theory. But as it stands our current theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of the fact that species evolve over time.

In other words, even though Newton's theory of gravity solves 99.9% of the problem, it still is not fundamentally correct.

It was a scientific explanation though. And it was succeeded by a better scientific explanation.

What would not have been a scientific explanation though, is a theory that an all powerful undetectable being constantly pushes all matter together.

It is quite fair to point out flaws in the theory of evolution which demand we go back to the drawing board.

I couldn't agree more, that's what science is about. I'd love to learn more about these so called flaws, could you elaborate?

But we must acknowledge he provided no real answers to the question of the origin of life.  There remains that work to be done, if we're still unsure of the answer.

So what? The theory of evolution explains how life evolved over time. Not how life started. Look up abiogenesis for the theory of how life began. Here is a well made youtube video explaining it -

One which may be "explained" by other various theories - that a Creator made the moth this way,

That is not a scientific explanation. "God did it" has been the explanation to almost everything at some point in time. No matter what you apply it to you can't disprove it. If this is the kind of explanation that satisfies you then you're welcome to it, but it couldn't be further from a satisfying explanation to someone who bases their beliefs on evidence and reason.

As a scientific hypothesis "God did it" fails because it introduces more complexity than the current theory. Have you heard of the concept of Occam's razor?

We must carve out the facts (observed phenomena) from the faith (often the theory, or the "how" of those phenomena). 

Sorry if it upsets you but all the facts fit with evolution. Scientists have belief in the theory of evolution, but not faith. Faith is belief in absense of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

The fact is that the Yucca Moth shows peculiar (wonderful, indeed!) instinctive behaviors.  In theorizing "how," Asyncritus seems confident of his answer, one built on faith - in which it is hard to poke holes - that a Creator encoded those requirements into the genes of the Yucca Moth.

If you assume that there is a creator then of course it is impossible to poke holes in "God did it" theory. However I can poke holes in your assumption all day long. It becomes an athiest vs. theist argument then, nothing to do with evolution. I'm happy to debate that - but this thread is supposed to be about science not religion, feel free to start a thread or add to one of the many millions of atheist vs. theist threads and i'll join you there.

"Evolution is a fact" (where "evolution" refers to classical macroevolutionary theory) is on par with "God did it."  Thus the choice exists for people as to which camp to join.  But we must acknowledge that at some point, everyone is making a leap of faith...

Just plain wrong. The first statement is based on observations and evidence and "God did it" is based on nothing.

[echochartruse]

In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,*

 Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.

Miller is a cell biologist and the Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown.
Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the "design" concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design -- or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the "s" curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.

"There is, indeed, a design to life -- an evolutionary design," Miller said.

"The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions.

Scientists should embrace this concept of 'design,' and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed."

4/010413083229.htm

'The Intelligent Genome,' by Adolf Heschl

Genes 'regulate' for a purpose and through a process we may not understand yet but not willy nilly and random without a reason, but usually with intent out of necessity for survival.

'Genes Know How to Network'http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/04/21-03.html?rss=1
not random but for a purpose

Genes know their left from their righthttp://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n9/full/nrg2194.html

'Evolutionary design' is not saying a diety

It may take some a very long time to grasp there doesn't have to be a 'diety' in control that life itself has design, function and one day we will find the purpose. That evolution is based on cause and effect, not random mutation.

[liquidusblue]

Did a search on google this morning "how does instinct work?" (out of bordom - waiting for a sofa to be delivered!). This thread on this website appeared top of the search engine.

The worrying thing is that I managed to read half of Asyncritus' initial post before realising hang on a second this is creationist tripe. [xx(]

I wouldn't class myself as particularly ignorant either. When I'm not at home waiting for the trivial items of life I work in a materials laboratory for one of the worlds largest weapons manufacturer, designing materials capable of withstanding hypersonic flight, using fancy tools like scanning electron microscopes, x-rays with computed tomography & performing failure investigations (similar to air crash investigations) in the rare event one of them breaks up in a trial, To name a few things. Can't say too much. But I'm not an idiot basically.

The way it is cleverly written in the style of a scientific argument, plus the fact it appears on this website (used to listen to the podcast occasionally - CT reconstructions can really grind sometimes!) suckered me in, thinking 'oooh this is interesting' until he basically said "evolution can't exist" before i thought... hey wait a moment, that's not right  [] [:I]

My concern is other people with nothing better to do than search for "how instinct works" [] will be suckered in. Not due to it's content (clearly manipulated) but the convincing way it is written posing as science. Is there any way of moving it lower down the searches or editing the original post to with a caveat on top.  [?]

Seems a bit police state i suppose. But I strongly feel all of this creationist stuff - especially with it being taught as 'Science' in some American schools over the pond is the biggest thread to real Scientific understanding today. Picking and choosing which bits of science to put in and leaving inconvenient things out to make it sound like the truth. [xx(] Grinded my gears so much i had to register! []

Don't worry if you think I'm being stupid, i have faith that most people will see it for what it really is. Well I certainly hope so! Or hat they will read the whole thread rather than the first post and see him being discredited. i should say, people are entitled to believe what they want but they shouldn't try pass their belief of as science  [!]

Anyway on a lighter note it also reminded me of this spoof science news story from newsbiscuit, some of the science ones are pretty funny sometimes:

newbielink:http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/ [nonactive]

What i find funniest is, were there any god or creator he'd / she'd be redundant now anyway, i don't understand why people feel they need one. People are "gods" pretty much. "Anything you can do, i (we) can do better!)  [] Able to perform "miracles" whether they be life extending "miracles", rehabilitating people after terrible accidents. Create synthetic life, alter existing life through GM. Fly, not just in air in space, land on the moon. Talk to someone on the other side of the planet through a device smaller than a cooking match box. Why on earth does anybody need a "god", we can do all his/her tricks! It's not as if he pushes the planes through the sky.

Unfortunately this extends to destructive power too (i probably play a part in this), the atomic bomb - 160,000 lives extinguished in an intant (and that was a tiny one there are ones hundreds of times bigger), biological weapons capable of larger numbers over time (equivalent to plagues in the bible), Toxic gases war and industry (Union Carbide - killing 25,000 people in Bhopal and now they are worried about a few oil covered pelicans // Controversy!  [] ) - Oil leaks, desertification of land through industry and so on. We've have more destructive power than anything described in the stories within religious books.

If i had a time machine and could travel back with half of the things I've mentioned here, I'm pretty sure I'd have the whole planet worshiping me, because to anybody who doesn't understand them they would look like "miracles".

Woah massive post!

Have a good day,
M

(sofa delivered between 08:00 and 18:00! Jeez Clearly no intelligent design in that!)

[BenV]

Hi liquidusblue, and welcome to the forum.

I'll have a chat with the moderators - we've not included disclaimers like this in the past, but you do have a very good point.

I suppose that people who want to have their creationist views confirmed will only read the first post and go away happy, but non-creationists would read on and see his arguments thoroughly refuted.

[echochartruse]

Biological clock - all living creatures have it. It controls cell division in bacteria. Migration in birds, butterflies and its associated with jet lag. circadian a (24-hour) life rhythm.

Our appitite is controlled by it

   MiRNAs have recently been discovered and have been shown to be involved in different processes in animals. By the use of new state-of-the-art techniques (most of them developed in the present study) the authors demonstrate that one specific miRNA (called bantam) recognizes and regulates the translation of the gene clock.

So its their body clock that tells them to migrate and apparently its their anntennae that direct them.

In a paper to be published in the journal Science, Reppert and his colleagues Christine Merlin, PhD, and Robert J. Gegear, PhD, have demonstrated that the butterflies' antennae —formerly believed to be primarily odor detectors—are actually necessary for sun-related orientation, a critical function commonly thought to be housed solely in the insect's brain.

Please read the links very interesting.

[echochartruse]

Statement by ornate iridescence 'There is no evidence of  "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.'

Mother Nature is accepted by TNS forum as having produced or created the illusion of design that's fine.

I disagree, wait, I'm not talking of a Deity...................If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.

There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.

Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.

also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"

Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.

Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.

Please eradicate the bias of this site.

[BenV]

If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.

That's clearly nonsense - it would be the other way around - if there were design, there would be no need for change.  There is no design, and there is change.

There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.

You saying it doesn't make it true.  I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.

Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.

also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"

Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.

No, that's true - and anyone asking the questions wouldn't be accused of being a creationist.  People claiming there is evidence that natural systems were designed by an external 'higher power' are likely to be accused of being creationists, however, as it all amounts to the same thing.

Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.

Please eradicate the bias of this site.

Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid.  But science seeks to remove this.  The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.

[echochartruse]

Ben V I know we don't see eye to eye but please let me have my opinion.
The 'design' IS the ability to change.

I look at natural things around me and see such amazing design, intricate structures and mechanisms. I don't know what else to call it.
I know some other scientific folk agree. Some are stem cell scientists, biologists etc. I am not alone in my thinking.
I don't think of myself as a creationist.
It's not just black and white there are a lot of questions to be answered and stuff to be proven of course.  Neither of us can prove or disprove this.
It only takes time and answers are revealed scientifically, one way or the other.
I believe there is design in nature, in science itself. That it’s not just "mother nature trying to illude us"

If there is no design, a plan, why should there be change?

Ben V

You saying it doesn't make it true.  I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.

I can’t understand how you couldn’t see design in nature and that is my bias just as I think it obvious. It is very difficult to research scientifically as this subject is largely ignored. But as we unravel biological systems, finding their cause and behaviour we are also discovering what the mechanisms are for and how they react to everything else such as the environment. So I suppose it will just take time to prove one way or the other.

Ben V

Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid.  But science seeks to remove this.  The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.

If you have proof there is no design in nature you WILL change my mind.

So we understand structure, behaviour and function in nature but you say there is no design. Can we call it a truce? Just accept that we both disagree?

Please don't label me a 'Creationist' just because I see the "Design" in nature.
It would be like labeling you a "Magician" - things just happen.

[Geezer]

Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

[echochartruse]

Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

[Geezer]

Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.

[echochartruse]

Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.

I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.

I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.

There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.

I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.

I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.

Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.

Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?

So why do we need intelligence for design?

[Geezer]

Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.

I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.

I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.

There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.

I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.

I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.

Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.

Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?

So why do we need intelligence for design?

All you are doing is superimposing another human concept on nature. Intelligence and design are both human concepts.

How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.

[echochartruse]

How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.

So you say they just happen?

[Geezer]

How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.

So you say they just happen?

Yes. Random mutations happen all the time. If they are beneficial to the species, they are inherited by subsequent generations. If they are detrimental to the species, they are much less likely to be inherited.

Adaptation is largely a process of trial an error. It may be a bit crude, but it's highly effective.

The "design" if you like, is for living organisms to continually experiment with random small changes. The environment determines if those changes are for the good or not.