You are missing the point here because in the latter case, you are using intelligence to emulate natural processes. It's like using a Pentium to do work that could easily be done on a 68HC11.

The next section expounds on this.



Tangled ropes created by natural processes end up in their condition (assuming you just throw a bunch of ropes on the floor) because of the underlying rules of physics.

These underlying rules ARE complicated, so this discussion opens up yet another can-of-worms for evolution, namely:

Where did all these complex physical rules come from?

Where did all this complexity in the universe get it order?

http://urlbam.com/ha/u

Hmmmmm... This gets even more interesting, but back to our example.

So, the rules of physics are complicated, which is why people go to school for a long time to understand them.

This is why the two very long posts that I made on this forum rebutting evolution are based in these two things:

(1) Math
(2) Rulesets

Now, pile of rope IS actually (in an absolute sense) a sign of intelligence, because it has "A TYPE OF" order that results through "natural" processes. These processes are defined by the underlying rulesets (laws of physics) which are indeed intelligent.

However, humans often try to understand complexity through abstraction: They try to forget some aspects about the underlying complexity of a system and isolate their focus to only a single "layer" at a time.

So when we do this, we may ASSUME that a pile of rope does not show intelligence in order that we may search for an isolated sign of intelligence only within a higher level of abstraction.

So, with this in mind, we can agree to lie to ourselves for a minute to make the assumption that a pile of rope does not show intelligence so we can better focus on the layer of abstraction before us.

So, in this lay or abstraction, a very valid question to ask is: How did DNA form under the control of the current ruleset?

Another relates to symmetry. We know of NO rulesets that facilitate symmetry. In fact, we know of NO rulesets that can jump all of the barriers between cells and highly-complex symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Yes, rulesets that define the basic physical movements that leads to a complex pile of ropes on the floor is well known and can be expressed mathematically. In fact, modern video games utilize these rules expressed in math to create realistic environments.

Yet, these these rules make no provision for the vast number of intelligent steps necessary for the creation of highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Now, I have spoken on this in detail in a post I made about a year ago, but I'm not going to put the time in to locating it now. I've already wasted too much time doing other things today.

Nevertheless, I may try to dig it up in the future so you can see it.

Hopefully, this information at least lays the foundation for that type of discussion.


I wrote the following a little earlier, so I'll guess I'll leave them here.


The arguments that I have made in the past against evolution that were based either in math or in arguments of ruleset progression have been all but ignored by the evolutionist on this forum.

We know that the universe, (physics) works according to sets of rules. These rules permit certain things to occur, like crystals to grow, and we understand the processes involved.

Now ignoring the mathematical absurdity of evolution entirely, we can still find brick walls opposing the evolution myth when you ask yourself how the existing rulesets could create symmetry.

You're an engineer (so says your profile). I used to design embedded system which involves both hardware and software. All of our designs are based on underlying rules.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, where are the underlying rules that enable the creation of symmetry?

Now I've heard evolutionists try to explain it by saying it has to do with signaling molecules or HOX, but as is so often the case, they get the cart before the horse.

If you want to make the argument that HOX was responsible, then you have created a problem that is bigger than the original problem, and that is: How do you create the HOX mechanism to begin with.

HOX requires more complexity than without. So, how do you get from simple mutations to a HOX mechanism. We have to deal with the mathematical absurdity of THAT (even before we get to the other absurdities).

Symmetry is a deal breaker, one among many, for evolution.