Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

February 19, 2008

K.D. Kalinsky

I. Introduction:

This article is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. As that

discussion unfolds, I

expect that this article will be revised over time in the same way that a

paper submitted to

a journal is often revised during the process of review. The purpose of this

article is to

attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of intelligent design and

the origin and

diversity of biological life. Essentially, we have two options. Either

biological life

required intelligent design or it did not. As with most problems in science,

it is difficult to

prove one option or another with absolute certainty. Instead, options can be

evaluated

against each other in an attempt to estimate which option is more likely.

Even then, the

fact that one option may be more likely than another does not 'prove' that

it is actually the

case. Instead, I will propose a way in which both options can be evaluated

against each

other. The results indicate that it seems highly likely that intelligent

design was required

for biological life.

II. Defining some terms and concepts

There is considerable confusion over what intelligent design is. Indeed, the

concept is

often used in different ways. It is sometimes used to describe a cause and

other times

used to describe an effect. For example, someone can ask if a laptop

computer requires

intelligent design or they can ask if it is an example of intelligent

design. In the first use,

'intelligent design' is being used in the causal sense; it is a necessary

cause for a laptop

computer. In the second use, it is being used as a result or effect;

intelligent design is the

result of a prior cause, presumably a mind. For the purpose of this article,

I will treat

intelligent design as an effect. In other words, the question, 'does this

laptop computer

require intelligent design?, can be replaced by the question, 'is this

laptop computer an

example of intelligent design?' Of course, if one is inclined to be more

exhaustive in their

definitions then, as is often the case in lexicons, two or more definitions

or senses of the

term can be offered.

If we take intelligent design to be an effect, then we can define it as an

effect that

requires a mind. If we take intelligent design to be causal, then we can

define it as the

process of producing an effect that requires a mind. Since the common

denominator in

both uses is an effect that requires a mind, I will define intelligent

design as follows:

Intelligent Design: an effect that requires a mind.

It follows from this that a necessary requirement for intelligent design is

a mind. Of

course, natural processes could also be necessary as well but, in this case,

insufficient to

produce the effect. Thus, at the very least, intelligent design requires a

mind but may also

require natural processes as well. In other words, natural processes may be

necessary for

intelligent design, but they are not sufficient; a mind is also necessary.

The other option is

the hypothesis that intelligent design is not required for a given effect.

This second option

must assume that natural processes are not only necessary to produce the

effect, but they

are also sufficient. A mind is not necessary. Thus, to be perfectly clear,

this second option

entails that mindless natural processes are necessary and sufficient to

produce the given

effect.

To illustrate the two options, let us imagine that the SETI Institute

obtains a signal from

outside the solar system that contains the first 50 prime numbers. If they

were to conclude

that it was more likely that a mind would be necessary to produce the signal

than that

mindless natural processes were sufficient to produce the phenomenon, then

the signal

would be a possible example of intelligent design. It would only be a

possible example,

due to the nature of scientific investigation; we could not be certain. No

matter how

improbable, it is still logically possible that the signal could have been

generated by

mindless natural processes. The best we could do is to weigh the probability

that a mind

could produce such a signal against the probability that mindless natural

processes could

do it and draw a conclusion as to which option was more likely. We know that

a mind

can generate the first 50 prime numbers, so the probability that a mind

could produce that

information is 1. If the probability that natural processes could generate

the first 50 prime

numbers is less than 1, then one can compare the two probabilities to decide

how much

more likely intelligent design is than mindless natural processes. If it

turns out that

intelligent design is ten times more likely, or a thousand more times more

likely, then it

becomes increasingly irrational to invoke mindless natural processes, and

increasingly

rational to invoke intelligent design.

Causal Hypothesis: For any effect, either mindless natural processes are

sufficient to

cause the effect, or a mind is required.

The problem arises in estimating which of the two options is more likely. We

need

something that we can use to distinguish between examples of intelligent

design and

mindless natural processes. One possibility is the following hypothesis:

Intelligence Hypothesis: an attribute that distinguishes a mind from

mindless natural

processes is the ability of a mind to produce effects requiring significant

levels of

functional information.

The above Intelligence Hypothesis allows that mindless natural processes can

accidentally produce functional information within, say, the background

noise of a

physical system, but the information will not achieve a significant level.

It also allows for

the fact that a mind can mimic mindless natural processes by producing

effects that do

not require a significant level of functional information. We are left with

the following

questions:

1. How is functional information measured?

2. What constitutes a significant level of functional information?

Before we look at these questions, we will take a brief look at the role of

intelligent

design in science.

III. The role of intelligent design in science

Intelligent design plays an important role in at least three areas of

science, including

intelligent design detection, reverse engineering, and applied design (e.g.,

human

intelligence applied to experimental design). In this section, I shall limit

the discussion to

the role of intelligent design detection in science. Intelligent design

detection can be

defined as follows:

Intelligent design detection: the discipline of examining an effect and

determining if

it is an example of intelligent design.

An area of science where intelligent design detection is front and center is

in the SETI

Institute's ongoing search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Radio and

optical signals from

deep space are monitored and analyzed to determine if the signal may have

come from an

extra terrestrial intelligence or not. Intelligent design detection is also

important for

archeology, where a distinction must be made between artifacts and effects

due to natural

processes. For example, ground penetrating radar can be used to search for

ancient

building sites and artifacts. The results must be continually analyzed to

determine if what

is being seen by radar is the result of mindless natural processes, or the

product of

intelligent design. Intelligent design detection is also central to forensic

science, which

concerns itself with whether the crime was carried out by an intelligent

agent, in this

case, human, or was due to natural causes. With advances in genetics and

cell biology,

and the discovery of molecular machines, molecular computers and functional

sequence

complexity encoded in the genomes of life, intelligent design detection has

now become

necessary in biology. Furthermore, the J.Craig Venter Institute's creation

of a synthetic

M. genitalium genome presents us with a genome that is known to have been

built by

intelligent design, and that contains five 'watermarks'.1 Strictly speaking,

it is the

'watermarks' that are known to be a result of intelligent design. Some have

asserted that

intelligent design has no place in science, but of course intelligent design

detection is

firmly entrenched and essential to SETI, archeology, and forensic science.

Those who

insisted that ID has no place in biology will have to admit that now that

synthetic

genomes are being constructed, with 'watermarks', intelligent design

detection is now an

issue in biology as well. The job of science is to come up with a general,

scientific

approach to intelligent design detection. One possible approach that has the

potential of

being general enough to be applied to SETI, archeology, forensic science,

and biology is

suggested by the Intelligence Hypothesis: examine the functional information

required to

produce the effect and then to decide if it is more likely than not that

intelligence was

required to produce that degree of functional information.

1 http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/venter-institut.html

IV. Functional Information

The Intelligence Hypothesis suggests that intelligence can produce effects

that require a

significant amount of functional information. To proceed, we need a method

to measure

functional information and, second, we need to decide what constitutes a

significant level

of functional information.

Measuring functional information

A method to measure functional information has recently been published by

Hazen et al.

whereby functional information is defined as

I(Ex) = - log2[M(Ex)/N] (1)

where Ex is the degree of function x, M(Ex) is the number of different

configurations that

achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, ? Ex, and N is the

total number of

possible configurations.2 To illustrate, suppose we inherit grandfather's

safe that has a

combination lock that requires three numbers, each within the range of 0 to

99. Since

each number has 100 possibilities, and there are three numbers, N = 1003 =

1,000,000

possible combinations. Let us suppose that the mechanism has a little slop

to it such that

one need only get within 1 digit of each of the three numbers. In other

words, for each of

the three numbers in the combination, there are actually three functional

options.

Therefore, the total number of functional combinations that will open the

safe is M(Ex) =

33 = 27 functional combinations. The amount of functional information

required to open

grandfather's safe is therefore

I(Ex) = - log2[27/1,000,000] = 15 bits of functional information.

As Hazen et al. point out, 'functional information quantifies the

probability that, for a

particular system, a configuration with a specified degree of function will

emerge', where

the probability is denoted by M(Ex)/N. Strictly speaking, the probability

that Hazen et al.

speak of is the probability Pf of achieving the function in a single

sampling, or

Pf = M(Ex)/N. (2)

As more trials are attempted, the probability of achieving the function

improves.

Estimating Isig

This raises the second question; what constitutes a significant level of

functional

information (Isig)? The Intelligence Hypothesis suggests that the attribute

that

distinguishes intelligence from mindless natural processes, is the ability

to produce

significant levels of functional information. Mindless natural processes can

accidentally

produce effects requiring a low level of functional information. For

example, if we were

2 Hazen, R.M., Griffen, P.L., Carothers, J.M. & Szostak, J.W. (2007)

'Functional

information and the emergence of biocomplexity', PNAS 104, 8574-8581.

to move grandfather's safe down to the riverbank, and attach a water driven

turbine to the

dial, and install the turbine in a turbulent portion of the current, where

the turbine could

be turned either direction by the current, it is possible that, after a long

enough time, the

variable current may actually open grandfather's safe. Of course, the number

of trials may

vastly exceed 1,000,000 if the same combinations are mindlessly tried more

than once.

Recall, as Hazen et al. point out, that probability is at the core of the

equation to measure

functional information. We must establish a relationship between the number

of trials

mindless natural processes have for the particular problem, and Pf.

A search by mindless natural processes is essentially a random walk, where

the search

proceeds in no set direction and, for any point in the search, it can be

returned to any

number of times. This is not to be confused with an evolutionary search that

is directed

by a fitness function or a fitness landscape, which will be discussed later.

We must first

establish Isig for a mindless natural search. In such a search, the

probability that a given

sampling will not be successful is 1 - Pf. For a search involving R trials,

the probability

that it will not be successful is (1 - Pf )R. Therefore, the probability

that the search will be

successful is simply 1 - (1 - Pf )R. Let us assume that a search will be

successful if the

search performs enough trials to raise the probability of success to 0.5, or

0.5 = 1 - (1 - Pf )R.

Simplifying, we get

Pf = 1-(1-0.5)1/R (2)

Eqn. (2) gives us an estimate for the most improbable functional event that

a blind search

could reasonably expect to find, given R trials. That being the case, the

highest level of

functional information that natural processes could reasonably be expected

to produce for

a given function would be the case where only one functional configuration

would

reasonably be found in R trials, or

Inat = - log2[1-(1-0.5)1/R]. (3)

The requirement for Isig is that it must be greater than Inat. For example,

if the turbine

method of trying to open grandfather's safe was capable of 500,000 trials

before the

system wore out, then the turbine-safe system could reasonably be expected

to produce as

much as 13 bits of functional information (Isig = 13 bits). Since a

functional combination

requires 15 bits of functional information, one could not reasonably expect

the turbine

system to open the safe without any intelligent design so far as finding the

right

combination is concerned. Therefore, if such a system were built and the

safe

successfully opened, we could on reasonable grounds accuse the engineer of

having

biased the system to find the right combination, for the physical system was

unlikely to

have done it without any intelligently designed bias built in. Due to the

nature of

probability, however, it is possible that the river current could open

grandfather's safe on

the very first try, or it might never open the safe. It is also possible

that the engineer did

not build in an intelligently designed bias to find the right combination,

we were just

fortunate. We could never be absolutely sure, therefore, whether there was a

built in

intelligently designed bias or not. Since at the core of functional

information is

probability, we can never arrive at a definitive conclusion, only a likely,

probable, or

plausible conclusion. This leads to the following considerations.

Probability considerations

1. Inat is not a cutoff for the amount of functional information natural

processes can

produce. Rather, the probability that natural processes can produce x amount

of

functional information decreases exponentially as the amount of functional

information increases beyond Inat. For example, if Inat = 32 bits of

functional

information, using Eqn. (1), this corresponds to a probability of

approximately 10-10

whereas 64 bits of functional information corresponds to a probability of

approximately 10-19. In other words, 64 bits of functional information is

only twice as

much information as 32 bits, but one billion times more difficult to find in

a search.

2. Our observations indicate that there does not seem to be any known limit

to the

amount of functional information that intelligence can produce. It seems to

be capable

of producing anywhere from 0 bits and up.

3. In view of the previous two points, we can only speak of the likelihood

that an effect

required intelligent design, where the greater the difference between the

functional

information required for the effect and Inat, the more likely it is that

intelligent design

was required. This would hold true for SETI, archeology, forensic science,

and

biological life.

Method to gauge the likelihood of intelligent design

Given that there is no known upper limit for the amount of functional

information a mind

can produce, for any effect requiring or producing functional information,

intelligent

design is the more likely explanation if

I(Ex) > Inat. (4)

The greater the difference between I(Ex) and Inat, the more likely it is

that intelligent

design was required. It will be assumed, for simplicity, that the

probability that mindless

natural processes can achieve Inat is 1 and decreases probabilistically for

I(Ex) > Inat. The

probability that intelligent design can achieve I(Ex) will be assumed to be

1 for any finite

amount of functional information. This is a reasonable assumption, given our

observations of what intelligence can do and the apparent absence of any

upper limit.

This method can, in principle, be applied within the fields of forensic

science,

archeology, SETI, and biology, as well as in areas outside of science, such

as lottery

gaming investigations, plagiarism investigations, and the justice system, to

name a few.

V. Application to Biological Life

Now that we have a method to identify examples of intelligent design, we are

now

equipped to apply it to biological life to see what the likelihood is that

it was designed.

We shall first discuss the relationship between natural selection and

functional

information. We will then derive a generous estimate of Inat for an

evolutionary search.

We shall then estimate I(Ex) for several test cases and, applying the method

suggested in

the previous section, see if it is likely that biological life is an example

of intelligent

design.

Natural selection, fitness functions, and functional information

It is usually assumed that the origin and diversification of life is not a

blind search.

Actual mutations, insertions, deletions, and genetic drift may be chance

events, but

natural selection essentially guides the search and, hence, the search is

not blind. On the

one hand, it is assumed that natural selection explains how life could

appear and diversify

without requiring any intelligence, but on the other hand, terms that that

are usually

applied to intelligence, such as 'design' and 'selecting' are commonly

applied to natural

selection. It is very common to read articles where the author marvels at

what natural

selection is capable of. Of course, this raises the question, does natural

selection, itself,

require intelligent design? The fatal mistake made by many who appeal to

natural

selection is the assumption that natural selection, itself, does not require

intelligent

design. It is bad science that does not test its assumptions, so we must

apply intelligent

design detection to natural selection itself.

Although natural selection is credited with somehow discovering the right

combination of

nucleotides to code for, say, proteins like SecY or RecA, there is a great

deal of

vagueness about how it actually is supposed to do this, and not just for two

proteins, but

for thousands. Not only must it somehow locate the proper sequences that are

determined

a priori by physics that will produce a stable 3-D structure, but it must

also be able to

assemble the information that will produce more impressive things like

molecular

machines, molecular computers and, ultimately, the cell and the organism

itself.

Fortunately, the field of genetic algorithms or evolutionary algorithms can

be used to

introduce rigor to the concept of natural selection.

Every evolutionary search process, whether we are discussing natural

selection, or a

computational evolutionary algorithm, requires a fitness function. Without a

fitness

function, the search degenerates into a blind search, at best. The fitness

function can be

defined as follows:

Fitness function (evaluation function): represents "the requirements to

adapt to. It

forms the basis for selection, and thereby it facilitates improvements. More

accurately, it defines what improvement means. From the problem-solving

perspective, it represents the task to solve in the evolutionary context."3

Since the fitness function, whether it is found in nature, or in a genetic

algorithm, must

contain the requirements to adapt to, or that defines the desired outcome,

it must contain

at least as much functional information as the desired outcome. If the

functional

information contained in the fitness function is less than the functional

information

required for the desired outcome, then the deficit must be made up for in a

blind search,

which falls prey to the probability problems that emerge.

Natural selection requires a fitness function. If a given protein is a

product of natural

selection operating within a fitness landscape, then sufficient functional

information

required to find that protein in an evolutionary search must be encoded

within the fitness

function. If a few hundred, or several thousand proteins are required, then

a great deal

more functional information must be encoded within a much more complex

fitness

function. If molecular machines are also desired, then additional functional

information

must be included within the fitness function.

No one actually knows where this amazing fitness function is in nature such

that we can

measure the amount of functional information that it contains. However, if

we assume

that natural selection is responsible for, say, the origin of gene coding

proteins, then we

can estimate the amount of functional information the fitness function of

nature contains

by measuring how much functional information a given protein requires. We

are then in a

position to see if intelligent design is required for natural selection to

produce the given

protein by comparing the degree of functional information that must be

encoded within

the fitness function of nature and comparing it with Inat. Intelligent

design detection

methods must be applied to natural selection to see if intelligent design is

required to

encode the appropriate amount of functional information into the fitness

function of

natural selection. There is no escape; the functional information within a

fitness function

must be measured and evaluated, and a test performed to see if it requires

intelligent

design.

For example, if an evolutionary algorithm is attempting to produce even more

complex

software commands, then the fitness landscape includes the operating system

within

which those commands will survive or fail and the functional information

required to

produce that operating system must be measured. If the fitness function is

outside the

actual algorithm, say within a database, then the functional information

contained in the

database must also be included. To summarize; if natural selection or a

fitness function

are credited with producing a given amount of functional information, then

if that

functional information exceeds Inat, by the method proposed in this article,

ID is required

to properly configure the fitness function.

Estimating Inat:

3 Eiben, A.E. & Smith, J.E. (2003) Introduction to Evolutionary Computing,

Springer-

Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 19.

It is estimated that there may be somewhere between 500 and 900 different

protein

folds,4,5 that form roughly 4,000 to 7,000 different protein families.6 The

stable folds are

determined by physics, not biology. This requires that any evolutionary

process must

perform a search of sequence space to locate those areas where physics

produces a stable,

3-D structure. Origin of life theorists are not decided as to what processes

could lead to

the minimal genome. Regardless of whether one prefers a genetic approach or

a

metabolic approach, we do know that at some point, proteins must be

produced, or at

least the information coding for stable, folded proteins must be achieved.

We can,

therefore, take all origin of life scenarios and put them into a 'black box'

which performs

an evolutionary search and outputs the stable folded proteins that are

permitted by

physics. It is not necessary to know what the processes within this black

box do, all we

need to know is the output. The output can be evaluated two ways, one way is

to assume

that the black box is performing a blind search which, of course, requires

no intelligent

design, and the other way is to assume that some sort of fitness function is

operating

within the black box which may or may not require intelligent design,

depending upon

how much functional information is required for the output. To estimate Inat

for a prebiotic,

origin of life search, we must estimate the number of trials available for a

blind

search. We will then be in a position to estimate Inat and compare it with

the functional

information required to produced a minimal genome to see if a fitness

function would be

necessary that would require intelligent design. Since we do not know what

processes

could perform the search, let us be extremely generous.

Taylor et al. have estimated that the mass of the earth would equal about

1047 proteins, of

100 amino acids each.7 If we suppose that the entire set of 1047 proteins

reorganized once

per year over a 500 million year interval (about the estimated time period

for pre-biotic

evolution), then that search permits about 1055 options to be tried. Using

Eqn. (3), Inat ?

185 bits of functional information. Of course, this scenario is much more

generous than

any scenario under consideration, but at least we will not be

underestimating Inat. If I(Ex)

requires more than Inat, then we can assume that either a fitness function

requiring

intelligent design must be included in the black box, or intelligent design

is operating in

some other fashion to properly encode the functional information.

We are now ready to examine four test cases.

Case One: the Venter Institute's synthetic genome for M. genitalium:

4 Taylor, W. (2002) 'A periodic table for protein structures', Nature, 416,

657-660.

5 Zhang, C. & DeLisi, C. (1998) 'Estimating the number of protein folds',

JMB, 284,

1301-1305.

6 Wolf, Y., Grishin, N. & Koonin, E. (2000) 'Estimating the number of

protein folds and

families from complete genome data', JMB 299, 897-905.

7 Taylor, S., Walter, K., Kast, P. & Hilvert, D. (2001) 'Searching sequence

space for

protein catalysts' PNAS 98, 10596-10601.

The five 'watermarks' in the synthetic Venter genome are formed by choosing

base pairs

that, when translated into amino acids and using the amino acid single

letter symbols,

spell out the following five words:

VENTERINSTITVTE

CRAIGVENTER

HAMSMITH

CINDIANDCLYDE

GLASSANDCLYDE.

Hazen et al. point out that the number of functional options can vary

according to the

degree of efficiency required by the system. This is true for both human

languages and

biopolymer sequences. In this case, however, we will assume that the Venter

Institute

wants their watermarks correctly spelled according to the above sequences.

Given that

there are 20 options for each site in each word, using Eqn. (1), I(Ex) = 259

bits of

functional information. Since Inat has been estimated at 185 bits of

functional

information, I(Ex) > Inat. These results indicate that it is about 1022

times more probable

that the watermarks required ID than that they could be produced by mindless

natural

processes. Therefore, by the method proposed here, we can conclude that the

'watermarks' are likely produced by ID, in this case, the Venter Institute.

Case Two: a folded, functional protein domain:

Axe has estimated that the frequency of occurrence of stable, folded

functional protein

domains, a structurally independent component of a protein, is somewhere

between 10-64

to 10-77.8 These values correspond to M(Ex)/N in Eqn. (1). The functional

information

required, therefore, to code for a stable, folded protein domain is 213 to

256 bits. Since

we have estimated Inat at a generous 185 bits, which is much too low to

achieve the

amount of functional information required to produce a folded, functional

protein

domain, I(Ex) > Inat and it is at least 1019 times more probable that ID can

produce a

folded functional domain than mindless natural processes. The method of ID

detection

proposed in this article, therefore, reveals that ID is highly likely to be

required to

produce folded, functional protein domains. If the sequences coding for a

stable fold are

the product of a pre-biotic black box that contains a fitness function, then

the fitness

function will require intelligent design.

Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein:

The functional information required to produce an average, 300-amino acid

protein, can

be estimated by analyzing the set of aligned sequences for SecY and RecA.

These two

proteins are particularly interesting because they are also universal

proteins, found

throughout organic life. It is inferred, therefore, that they would be

required in a minimal

genome. Analyzing a set of 1,553 aligned sequences for RecA and 469 aligned

sequences

8 Axe, D. (2004), 'Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting

functional

enzyme folds', JMB, 1295-1315.

for SecY reveals that 832 bits of functional information are required for

RecA and 688

bits for SecY.9 It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate the functional

information required

for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information.

I(Ex) > Inat

and ID is 10155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to

produce the

average protein. Again, if natural selection is invoked to explain the

origin of proteins, a

fitness function will be necessary that requires intelligent design.

Case Four: the simplest life form:

It is estimated that the simplest life form would require at least 382

protein-coding

genes.10 Using our estimate in Case Four of 700 bits of functional

information required

for the average protein, we obtain an estimate of about 267,000 bits for the

simplest life

form. Again, this is well above Inat and it is about 1080,000 times more

likely that ID could

produce the minimal genome than mindless natural processes. Again, if one

wishes to

explain the origin of the simplest life form by natural selection, a fitness

function will be

required that is capable of generating 267,000 bits of functional

information, well into the

area that requires intelligent design.

VI. Conclusion:

In this article, I have proposed a method for the detection of intelligent

design. Applying

that method to the Venter 'watermarks' in their synthetic genome, the method

successfully

identifies the watermarks as highly likely to require ID. The same method

applied to

protein domains, average proteins, and the minimal genome, also indicates

that ID is

required for even the simplest life form. If life is the product of natural

selection and an

extremely complex fitness landscape, then we can conclude that it is

extremely likely that

intelligent design was required to configure the fitness function. Whether

there actually is

such an impressive fitness function encoded in nature is outside the scope

of this

discussion. I have not proved that intelligent design was required for

biological life.

Instead, I have shown that given intelligent design is easily capable of

generating

functional information on the level of what is required for biological life,

and given that

the functional information required for biological life is far beyond what

we could

reasonably expect nature to generate, intelligent design is the most

probable explanation,

by many orders of magnitude, for biological life. Intelligent design would

also be the

most probable explanation for any fitness function operative in natural

selection that

could successfully locate the folding proteins required for life.

9 Durston, K., Chiu, D., Abel, D. & Trevors, J. (2007) 'Measuring the

functional sequence

complexity of proteins', Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 4:47.

10 Glass, J., Assad-Garcia, N., Alperovich, N., Yooseph, S., Lewis, M.,

Maruf, M.,

Hutchison III, C., Smith, H., & Venter, J. (2006) 'Essential genes of a

minimal bacterium'

PNAS, 103, 425-430.

There is nothing intelligent in nature. Animals eat other animals to

survive. Is that intelligent? Why are there thousands of diseases and

serious body malfunctions, is that also intelligent? Why is earth the

ONLY planet supporting life out of billions of other planets? An

intelligent designer would have done a better job.

In sci.physics uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:

> There is nothing intelligent in nature. Animals eat other animals to

> survive. Is that intelligent?

Just the other day you were claiming animals made ideal communists.

So are you now saying you have to be unintelligent to be a communist?

--

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

uri wrote:

> Why is earth the

> ONLY planet supporting life out of billions of other planets?

How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

What's your evidence for this?

--

L. Raymond

On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

> What's your evidence for this?

There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

life somewhere in the universe.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

uri wrote:

| On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

|

|> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

|> What's your evidence for this?

|

| There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

| exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

| spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

| life somewhere in the universe.

|

Very good, you figured it out. Number 2 is factual based on the

enormous size of the universe and the probability of life evolving with

in that vastness.

So much for the concept of gods.

- --

There are none more ignorant and useless,

than they that seek answers on their knees,

with their eyes closed.

____________________________________________________________________

Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

~ http://azhotops.blogspot.com/

A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director

____________________________________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFICj8vf+wl0F6+jvgRAl7eAKCLoW3uTL1AhN/hpxCDJQRKBmDVbACfWtYz

n7y7X5+BBwKpclpnto5fN/0=

=WenC

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:41:31 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism

uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in

<c077a300-b4c0-47fe-a61c-4908f0e16179@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>:

>On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

>

>> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

>> What's your evidence for this?

>

>There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

>exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

>spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

>life somewhere in the universe.

>

>http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm

Must? Why?

It seems very likely that there is life on many planets, but you have

created a false dichotomy.

uri wrote:

> On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

>

>> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

>> What's your evidence for this?

>

> There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

> exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

> spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

> life somewhere in the universe.

You should have randomly capitalized and/or misspelled some words, but

other than that you do a good job of satirizing the scientifically

illiterate creationists.

--

L. Raymond

In sci.physics uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

> > How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

> > What's your evidence for this?

> There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

> exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

> spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

> life somewhere in the universe.

3) The conditions required for life to form are rare and life hasn't

formed anywhere else.

4) The conditions required for life to form are uncommon and life has

formed in a few places.

5) The conditions required for life to form are common and life has

formed in many places.

If you want to posit an all powerfull God:

6) God saw the results of creating life on Earth, i.e. Uri, and gave

up on creating life as a bad idea.

7) God saw the results of creating life on Earth, i.e. Uri, and tried

something different elsewhere.

--

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Intelligence arises from components that lack intelligence. The brain

is made up of atoms. Each atom lacks intelligence. Since

intelligence can arise from the unintelligent, any data that indicates

intelligent design could also be the result of a very complicate

system of unintelligent components producing that data.

On Apr 19, 9:25 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

> There is nothing intelligent in nature. Animals eat other animals to

> survive. Is that intelligent? Why are there thousands of diseases and

> serious body malfunctions, is that also intelligent? Why is earth the

> ONLY planet supporting life out of billions of other planets? An

> intelligent designer would have done a better job.

Intelligent design is not without its mistakes or unfortunate

mutations, like the one which created "uri".

.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 19, 12:13 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 11:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>

> > Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

> > February 19, 2008

>

> Psychotic morons aren't in the best position to claim "intelligent

> design", Patriot. Bear it in mind.

And your supposed better standard for intelligent design is????

.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 19, 12:49 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:

> On Apr 19, 9:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

> > February 19, 2008

> > K.D. Kalinsky

>

> > I. Introduction:

> > This article is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. As that

> > discussion unfolds, I

> > expect that this article will be revised over time in the same way that a

> > paper submitted to

> > a journal is often revised during the process of review. The purpose of this

> > article is to

> > attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of intelligent design and

> > the origin and

> > diversity of biological life. Essentially, we have two options. Either

> > biological life

> > required intelligent design or it did not.

>

> No... that's wrong from the get go.

>

> Biological life requires organization ... repeatable bio-chemical

> interactive outcomes from the molecular level on up.

> Where that organization came from should be the matter under dispute

> dispute.

>

> PS: Human origins: The extremely large percentage (compared to other

> species) of 'junk DNA' in homo-sapiens should prove to be extremely

> interesting for any adherent of intelligent design..

That's very good logic. Too bad this mostly anti-think-tank Usenet of

such a Semitic faith-based ideology that's clearly intent upon global

domination, as such isn't the least bit interested, much less in

allowing whatever truths that could materialize.

.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 20, 1:45 am, "I never proof-read my posts."

<goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Intelligence arises from components that lack intelligence. The brain

> is made up of atoms. Each atom lacks intelligence. Since

> intelligence can arise from the unintelligent, any data that indicates

> intelligent design could also be the result of a very complicate

> system of unintelligent components producing that data.

How do we know that atoms don't have a form of intelligence?

How about photons, gravitons and of all the other weird black stuff of

our vast and supposedly forever expanding universe; is it all w/o

intelligence?

.. - Brad Guth

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:acf40223-a821-41ef-b61f-b2343afc78a0@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 19, 11:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

> February 19, 2008

Psychotic morons aren't in the best position to claim "intelligent

design", Patriot. Bear it in mind.

=========================

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:c0aacdc9-a080-47ad-a158-ac78f0ad71bb@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:129b3ae1-8022-44fc-8b9b-92ff680097b4@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>> On Mar 13, 2:11 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> "Joe" <dropdead_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> >> YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

>> >Did you say something, baby-killer?

>> Thanks for outting yourself.

>I don't believe I've ever made any secret of the fact that I consider

>current members of the U.S. military to be mercenary scum, Patriot.

>

>And, that I consider Vietnam veterans to have been baby killers. So

>do quite a few of them, by the way. You were in a useless war,

>killing people for no reason, which, apparently you've never recovered

>from. My sympathies. Doesn't change the facts, though.

!

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:acf40223-a821-41ef-b61f-b2343afc78a0@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 19, 11:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

> February 19, 2008

Psychotic morons aren't in the best position to claim "intelligent

design", Patriot. Bear it in mind.

==========================

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ce9df93b-3f07-4b39-9b1b-532f10ce3e36@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 27, 5:19 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> Let's summarize:

>> 1) You were completely WRONG about everything.

>> 2) I was completely correct about everything.

>> 3) You KNEW you were completely WRONG about everything and did not even

>> attempt to substantiate any of it.

>> 4) I KNEW I was completely correct about everything AND PROVED IT.

>Simple to explain, Patriot.

Yes, I explained it above.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

YOU ARE A FRAUD.

I have EXPOSED YOU as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

And the good news is Google and Yahoo Groups will SAVE THIS FOREVER.)

>Rapes, assaults, property crimes -- why, who

>cares? That's the attitude of American police.

Again, NOT ONE CITE FROM YOU. ONLY BULLSHIT.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

YOU ARE A FRAUD.

I have EXPOSED YOU as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You claim that criminals WANT TO GO STRAIGHT and all they need is

HELP.

You FAILED TO PROVE that criminals WANT TO GO STRAIGHT.

I PROVED that most criminals DO NOT WANT to go straight.

And I EXPOSED YOU as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

Only 17% of eligible inmates participate in Federal Prison Industries, only

35% participate in Education programs and only 7% take advantage of

Vocational/Occupational Training programs.

http://www.bop.gov/news/PDFs/sob05.pdf

Quite obviously, 83% DO NOT WANT TO GO STRAIGHT and 93% DO NOT WANT TO LEARN

ANOTHER CAREER.

You claim that "most industrialized countries" take care of their citizens

and so have fewer criminals and crimes.

You FAILED TO PROVE that "most industrialized countries" take care of their

citizens and so have fewer criminals and crimes.

I PROVED that "most industrialized countries" DO NOT take care of their

citizens and so DO NOT have fewer criminals and crimes.

And I EXPOSED YOU as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN equally high Assaults:

Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

#6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people

#8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people

#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people

#10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN why OTHER COUNTRIES have HIGHER VICTIMIZATION Rates:

#2 United Kingdom: 2.8%

#3 Australia: 2.4%

#4 New Zealand: 2.4%

#5 Canada: 2.3%

#6 Finland: 2.1%

#7 Denmark: 1.4%

#8 France: 1.4%

#9 Sweden: 1.2%

#10 Belgium: 1.2%

#11 United States: 1.2%

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN why OTHER COUNTRIES have HIGHER RAPE Rates:

Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

#3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people

#5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people

#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN why OTHER COUNTRIES have HIGHER VICTIMIZATION Rates:

Rape victims (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

#1 New Zealand: 1.3%

#2 Austria: 1.2%

#3 Sweden: 1.1%

#4 Finland: 1.1%

#5 Australia: 1%

#6 United Kingdom: 0.9%

#7 Canada: 0.8%

#8 Slovenia: 0.8%

#9 Netherlands: 0.8%

#10 France: 0.7%

#11 Switzerland: 0.6%

#12 Italy: 0.6%

#13 Denmark: 0.4%

#14 United States: 0.4%

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN why OTHER COUNTRIES have HIGHER CRIME Rates:

Burglaries (per capita) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

#1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people

#3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people

#5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people

#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people

#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people

#8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people

#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people

#10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people

#12 Iceland: 8.11156 per 1,000 people

#13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people

#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

You FAILED TO EXPLAIN why OTHER COUNTRIES have HIGHER CRIME Rates:

Property crime victims (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pro_cri_vic-crime-property-victims

#1 New Zealand: 14.8%

#2 Australia: 13.9%

#3 Italy: 12.7%

#4 United Kingdom: 12.2%

#6 Canada: 10.4%

#7 United States: 10%

YOU are now exposed as a LIAR and a FRAUD.

<lorad474@cs.com> wrote in message

news:d62ccc95-a277-4573-bf1a-465277a9bb6f@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 19, 9:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

>> February 19, 2008

>> K.D. Kalinsky

>> I. Introduction:

>> This article is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. As that

>> discussion unfolds, I

>> expect that this article will be revised over time in the same way that a

>> paper submitted to

>> a journal is often revised during the process of review. The purpose of

>> this

>> article is to

>> attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of intelligent design and

>> the origin and

>> diversity of biological life. Essentially, we have two options. Either

>> biological life

>> required intelligent design or it did not.

>No... that's wrong from the get go.

>Biological life requires organization ... repeatable bio-chemical

>interactive outcomes from the molecular level on up.

>Where that organization came from should be the matter under dispute

>dispute.

Same thing...

>PS: Human origins: The extremely large percentage (compared to other

>species) of 'junk DNA' in homo-sapiens should prove to be extremely

>interesting for any adherent of intelligent design..

Yep.

"I never proof-read my posts." <goofindoo@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9916f6f5-dd12-4df1-a25f-89af36f02ca7@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

> Intelligence arises from components that lack intelligence.

An unsophisticated observation.

> Since intelligence can arise from the unintelligent,

Unproven, to date.

> any data that indicates

> intelligent design could also be the result of a very complicate

> system of unintelligent components producing that data.

"Data" is not the result of anything other than scientific observation and

testing.

"urine" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message

news:c077a300-b4c0-47fe-a61c-4908f0e16179@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

>> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

>> What's your evidence for this?

> There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

> exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

> spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

> life somewhere in the universe.

> http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm

Your small mind failed to consider:

2-a) Life was created on many planets by God.

3-a) Life has formed on JUST THIS ONE planet spontaneously because of

extremely unique circumstances.

Perhaps you should confine yourself to your Smurf-based political opinions

and leave the hard work to those more capable?

Patriot Games wrote:

>

> "urine" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message

> news:c077a300-b4c0-47fe-a61c-4908f0e16179@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

> > On Apr 19, 7:20 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:

> >> How do you know there is no life in all the universe except on Earth?

> >> What's your evidence for this?

> > There are only two realistic options to consider. 1) Life was created

> > exclusively on this planet by God. 2) Life has formed on many planets

> > spontaneously. If the second option is true then there must be other

> > life somewhere in the universe.

> > http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm

>

> Your small mind failed to consider:

>

> 2-a) Life was created on many planets by God.

[snip rest of crap]

Only an idiot or a virgin believes in Intelligent Design.

--

Uncle Al

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/

(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Apr 19, 10:17 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?

> February 19, 2008

> K.D. Kalinsky

Here is a more readable version.

What a load of nonsense this paper is. It sounds like something meant

to fool amateurs into thinking it has scientific content.

Sri Bodhi Prana.