[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs Ok, wow, there was a lot to chew on in that last post. I am not really sure what you mean in the above statement. How does our DNA "learn" what our strongest traits are? As for the "re-designing" our body to overcome weakness is a bit misleading if I am reading it the right way. Are you saying that DNA changes itself through a thought process of some kind or randomly. If it is random, then it would seem to be overcoming weakness as if it was somehow cognitive? This is where I have to point out that we should also provide sources. I mean, is this going to be a debate between our ideas or between a more general consensus of some sort? Do ID'ers believe this as well or is this your personal view? Is there any literature, on the topic above, that supports this? Well, I am not expecting a book, but some sort of citation would be just as good. As for what I am expecting from you is this: For ID and creationism to be considered science it has to, and as a consequence you have to, show what the process of design is, why a designer would design in such a way, what is the methodology behind the design, what experiments are being performed to prove a designer and how these experiments are falsifiable. Why don't you start by explaining what exactly you think, or what the consensus among ID'ers is, a "designer" is.

I hope you do not mind if I comment on your last remarks first, and work back up to the top..

I like your last remark.

Is it possible if I can debate this as two people? My ideas and then the ideas that conform to the ID'ser consensus?

Before I do this I must point out that the ID'ser movement has broken down into sub-groups of people. The Christian group. The Eastern religons have their group, and we even have a secular version, and perhaps a Jewish sub-group. The Pope is getting involved and is constructing his group that might hold views not shared by the Christan group that first coined the term "intelligent design".

Because it is the Christian group that wants Creationism introduced into the school textbooks I would take their side of the debate, in a 3rd party sense, because the Christian group is also the most dominate. Plus in a seperate section my personal opinons on the topic.

My difinition of what a designer is. "anything or any being that can design something" A Intelligent Designer is a Mind.

The IDers difinition of a designer is someone (human) or a supernatural being. Needless to say humans did not create the universe or life on earth, therefore they hold the position that a supernatural being created and designed the earth. Just like humans created and designed a automoble.

Not a design like we an draw on some paper, but a design where you have different parts working together in harmony to fullfill some purpose or task. A "operational design".

Establishing proof is the hard part.

First you need a scientist that has a very high I.Q. or you need to have lots of money for labs, a large number of qualified people to conduct experiments and so forth. I do not have such resources personally. Mainstream science has thousands of people all over the world helping to confirm the theory of evolution. The ID people have a small insitute of research, and a couple of scientists on board.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Once I or the ID Christians come up with a theory then they must get a peer review of it and have it published. The peer review would be done by scientists already working in the fields of biology or whatever, and I honestly do not think they would give the theory of Creationism two thumbs up. As you might of noticed this topic has been moved from the science forum to this forum, the same thing would happen if you attempted to get Creationism accepted in the scientific community, they would still view it as something mythological, etc. The "keep out" sign was already posted on the doors that hold the titles of science. In other words, you would be debating a low-budget version sub-group of mainstream science. Or my personal opinons.

So question is: Must it be concidered as science by mainstream science, or just concidered as science by laymen and a minority of scientists?

Now back to the questions and remarks at top of your response.

Before beginning I must admit that this idea was hatched by me this week. Details would be forthcoming as we go along as needed.

1. How does DNA "learn" what our strongest traits are?

Evolution is descent and modification (change).
The genes in the our DNA are due to descent, passed on to us by our parents ( same with most animals ). Those genes pre-determine many things about how we will be like as adults, and stages in-between.
The collective genes make up the DNA stand which operates like a informational data base. Like our memory does in our mind (brain).

Now stronger traits are often determined by mating rituals in animal populations, the strongest male gets the female after they duke it out.
In other birds and animals a number of factors might come into play to determine what traits will dominate and therefore be passed on by descent.

In the case of humans that only rarely plays a role. (hope you do not mind if I ramble a bit), as a girl might pick a guy who is very rich, rather then for his physical abilities. etc.

If a animal (meaning also us humans) is to change or evolve then it would be because of one of two reasons I can think of (presently).

Because of the combination of two sets of genes from the mother and farther who represent a much larger gene pool, which might be diverse or limited.

Or because of new imputs from the environment or "stress".

Example: You might have a small legged horse, but suddenly it must deal with wolves as a preditor, so it must run away for self survivial, as a result the legs are stressed and over generations the legs become much longer for faster get-aways. So how did the genes learn to re-design longer legs for the horses. It learns in part by the experience of descent and modification. Learning by experience. Somehow the stress becomes information that is passed on to the genes that reports "hey, we need longer legs" (hmm, a silly way to put that - but perhaps you still get the point?).

None the less, you have a whole system that is learning and making modifications based on that in-put. A self-contianed system of reprograming the genes to pass down the most intelligent pathway to follow. Evidence of intelligent designing becuase it would b stupid to have the horses grow shorter legs, or to remain the same, so the wolves would be able to eat them all.

Did I say that DNA changes it's self by a thought process or some kind of random process?

Thinking is a process that involves a lot of random thoughts. This we know already by our personal experience. Even can be a bee's nest of confusion. So we cannot seperate random-ness from any kind of thinking process per-say. Selection then becomes the key factor.
Selecting the best thoughts or ideas. We often select the most dominate thought to manifest a process out of. The thoughts that survive are the thoughts that are used.

Now DNA does not think like we might think in our awakened state, it is not aware of the fact that it is interpreting data nor does it sit around and try to think what would be the best way to evolve. It is more like an automated system of processing information, in my opinion. Besides selection we also have a process involving thought processing where we take two ideas and put them together to create a new idea. The mating of two ideas that give birth to another individualized idea... baby makes three. Reproductive thought.

But automative thought processing can still produce intelligent determinations. The program is only as good as the Programer.
Even a computer can produce an intelligent determination with the right data being programed into it from the outside.