I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  
  

  Intelligent in the sense that it does the work required.....

  ....The ribosome is intelligent enough to accurately “read” the instructions from the DNA of the nucleus through the mRNA.

  At first blush, that sounds to me like intelligence in the sense of purpose rather than intelligence in the sense of comprehension.

  Would that explanation also apply to the head assembly of a hard drive, disk pack, cassette player, etc. or would that be stretching it too far?

  (Just trying to be sure that I understand the argument..)
  

  
  
  
• 

  A Ha

  Intelligent in the sense that it does the work required.

  You are changing definitions again. Earlier you argued that DNA required a volitional intelligence behind it, therefore, God. You argued that "in the sense that it does the work required" was not good enough, but you're trying to drop it when challenged about volitional intelligence on the receiving end. If you are adopting this non-volitional definition again, then a volitional intelligence is not necessary on either the sending or receiving end, and your argument for the necessity of a God in the case of DNA dies.

  
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Yes, TD, I view human language and computer language as Universal Information (UI), being a non-material entity, not the property of matter, and having an intelligent sender and receiver. The question is: Could the DNA of a living cells be viewed as a source of UI? If so, then it must have an intelligent compiler or programmer. If not, then it would have originated randomly by natural processes, thus spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. The former has been disproved by Louis Pasteur in the 18th century, and I believe the latter process to be impossible. Of course the evolutionists would reject this out of hand because if true, it would sink their beloved theory.
  
• 

  A Ha

  and having an intelligent sender and receiver.

  When the DNA of an amoeba replicates, who or what is the intelligent receiver?
• 

  Vidqun

  A Ha, replication is their way to procreate. When an Amoeba replicates through mitosis, nuclear transcription would take place. The new Amoeba would be the beneficiary. Information from the original Amoeba would be passed on to the replicated Amoeba. Similarly, some Amoebae form cysts in unfavorable conditions. The process insures their survival. This time the Amoeba would benefit itself. In Amoebal terms it would be “intelligent” in the sense that it would conserve and multiply its species.
  
• 

  A Ha

  So you have been trying to argue that an intelligence (as in actual intelligence; an intelligent agent) is necessary for replication, but now you recognize that an intelligent agent is not necessary. Excellent.
• 

  Vidqun

  No A Ha, your missing the point. The big question is: How did Amoeba end up with a coding system in the first place? Did the organic and inorganic molecules one day decide on a cooperation agreement to form a coop? After coming together they randomly formed a system to protect their newly formed coop, and to replicate the coop for it to multiply. The coding system of its DNA developed by itself? So yes, in the light of the evidence, an intelligent sender is still necessary for it to get going (creation and biogenesis). It cannot get going by itself (abiogenesis).

  Take the argument a step further. This Amoeba now becomes ambitious. It and its colleagues now decide to colonize and turn into a multi-celled organism. But now they have to rearrange their coding system anew to accomodate the new reality. Now things get complicated. Mitosis, to replicate, would not be enough. A multi-celled organism, in order to survive and multiply, will be needing a new way of reproduction, i.e., meiosis, to survive. It will also have to develop new organelles to utilize sunlight and CO2, initiating the process of fotosynthesis, etc.
• 

  A Ha

  I'm understanding the point very well. You tried to say claim that DNA was an actual code, and according to your made-up definitions of information, that meant it must have an intelligent sender. When shown that by that same made-up definitions, DNA must also have an intelligent receiver, you changed your definition such that "intelligence" carried some nonsense meaning of "helps it replicate." When told that this would mean your intelligent sender was no longer necessary, you changed your definition back... then changed it again.... then changed it again... and on and on. You have repeatedly equivocated on the meanings of words and of which definitions you're using, and when called out on it by multiple people, you've simply ignored it and gone back to the previous definition.
• 

  Vidqun

  A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent." I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored. Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it? Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in non-human animals and plants (Wiki). Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive. Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming. Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:

  adjective

  1.

  having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals:

  an intelligent student.

  2.

  displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment:

  an intelligent reply.

  3.

  having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence:

  intelligent beings in outer space.

  4.

  Computers. pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart:

  An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer.

  Compare dumb (def 8).

  5.

  Archaic. having understanding or knowledge (usually followed by of). [Cursive script added.]
• 

  A Ha

  A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent."

  I'm not stuck on one definition. I'll use the term whichever way you like, but you must stick to one definition. You don't get to use it one way when talking about the sender, and another way when talking about the receiver. That's called equivocation, and it's dishonest. Do you imagine your God wants you to use dishonest arguments? Can He do no better?
  

  I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored.

  There was nothing to address. There are only two reasons to use an example of AI. One is to claim that this definition of intelligence fits the situation better than any other definition one might find, which would be a silly thing to say. The other is to try to make a deductive argument, but I did you a favor in not treating it like that, because it's a terrible argument. If you really want to make the deductive argument, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you.

  Dictionaries list various definitions for various usages and contexts. When using a dictionary to define a word, you choose the most appropriate definition for the context. You don't get to choose multiple definitions and change at will. Again, that's called equivocating, and it's dishonest.

  On top of that, when shown the inconsistency of your argument, you tried to use a meaning of "intelligence" that doesn't appear in any dictionary (the nonsense about intelligence means to "conserve and multiply its species"). You just made that one up out of thin air.

  Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it?

  Following a program. Programmers use the terms smart and dumb to connote certain functions, but they chose those words to differentiate between relatively basic and advanced functionality. It would be silly to try to use intelligence as it's used in computing to describe volitional agency when there are much better definitions available.

  Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive.

  Well at least you were honest enough to put scare quotes around the word. Amoeba's are merely reacting to stimuli; they do not have an intelligent mind moving them around.

  So getting back to your claim of an intelligent sender and intelligent receiver for this wonderful UI that you've made up, are you referring to the intelligence of a volitional mind, or are you referring to the intelligence of a mindless automaton reacting to stimuli. Pick one.

  Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming.

  This is what I've been trying to get you to demonstrate, but you keep confusing yourself by switching definitions mid-sentence.

  Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:

  Pick one of those definitions for the context of your definition of information, and don't make up your own, a la "conserve and multiply its