Unfortunately Linear, you misunderstood my point on several fronts. Let me try and clear it up.



No. Exactly the opposite. The rules are the same.




It is clear that intelligence already exists in the rules. Once the rules exist, stating that the reactions they incur require intelligence is a matter of semantics.

By the way, intelligence in the designs/definitions of these rules is especially necessary if you believe that these rules were created (whoops!) ...exist in such a way that they caused matter to come together into highly-complex symmetrical self-reproducing forms. This would take a whole lot of forethought, and my question to evolutionists is:

"Who had this forethought?"



Wow. My point has really become mangled here.

What I said was that these reactions are spatially-dependent, in other words, they cannot occur over great distances (only when they are sufficiently close to each other) and that they have no awareness of what is happening a sufficient (small) distance from themselves. Therefore, there cannot be a sense of coordination between some reactions happening over here and some happening over there, which is—of course—required for the formation of symmetry, not to mention coordinated-complexity.

Instead, there must be an Intelligence external to the rulesets themselves that assembled the components—having an in-depth knowledge of the existing rules—so that the final (highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing) machine can be spatially coordinated, that is, that an organ (for example) would work in conjunction with other remote organs without having any knowledge or understanding of each other (think chemical messengers, nerves, etc.). (Organs are not intelligent but they are intelligently designed.)

It sounds like you have my point quite backwards, but I hope this helps.


Let me elaborate just a little to shed some additional light here.

It is clear that our bodies, which are in fact machines, are constructed in a way that isolates complexity (rulesets) into layered, progressive units.

For example, before we could have computers, we had to have transistors.

The construction of a transistor is based on rules involving physics. For example, the MOS-FET transistor (the basis for most transistors in your computer) utilize the physical laws that enable current flow through a semiconductor material to be controlled by an electric field.

So, this not-too complex device was invented based on the discovery of these rulesets relating to current and electric fields.

Now, for a person to use a transistor, they don't have to know anything about the physics involved inside a transistor. They only have to look at the published charts (bias curves, etc.) that show the behavior of the transistor (its ruleset) to know how it will react under any set of conditions. This fact enables specialization in society and allows devices to be built that are more complex than before the transistor existed because the complexity of the transistor has been contained within a single unit. This containment is called "encapsulation".

This discovery and utilization of the rules enabling the development of the transistor cleared the way for the eventual construction of integrated circuits which are basically a bunch of electronic components (usually mostly transistors) on a single piece of silicone.

Early integrated circuits were, for example, the 7400 series, which were simple logic gates. These gates have a ruleset all their own which is published by their manufacturers. The rulesets they publish for these gates are called "truth tables".

So, now someone with no knowledge of transistor physics and with no knowledge of the bias curves of transistors can use these gates to do useful things. In fact, the useful things these gates are used for making today are microprocessors.

Companies who make microprocessors publish an "instruction set" which tells the user of the microprocessor exactly how it will behave under a certain set of conditions...its ruleset (each individual rule is called an "opcode"). So now, a person has no need to know anything about how to build a transistor, or how to use a transistor based on its bias curves, or even how to even use a logic gate in order to use a microprocessor. They simple have to look at the published instruction set (ruleset) for the device.

This demonstrates the use and value of encapsulation, and the interesting thing about this design philosophy is that the human body is designed in just this way. Examples of objects that operate on the principles of encapsulated levels of complexity are cells and organs.

A very nice thing about encapsulated complexity based rulesets is that it enables other complex units within the machine to work with each other efficiently, but it does require (and this is critical) that both units be designed so that their rulesets are compatible with each other ("ruleset interdependency"). This is no small feat (think signaling, messaging, connectivity, nerves, messenger hormones, etc.) because it's much like getting computers to speak to each other, which in the case of the Internet, took DARPA (some of the world's best minds) years to develop.

Understanding this concept of ruleset interdependency is essential for seeing one of the many fallacies of evolution, and furthermore, this interdependency is existent at each level of encapsulated complexity.

[color:"brown"]In summary, it takes a lot of intelligence to design complex things, but nature does not contain this intelligence, it only utilizes the intelligence already contained in its design by virtue of its design. There is a big difference between the design of a ruleset and the utilization of a ruleset, yet many become confused on this point and give nature all the credit.[/color]


I hope this is helpful.