Intelligent Design

[godlesscommie]

If I see another "letter to the editor" in our student paper, in defense of intelligent design as a scientific endeavor, I will lose all faith in the quality of instruction students receive at the undergraduate level. I don't care if you think a large bearded white man in the sky created everything with a wave his middle finger, I don't care if you believe extraterrestrials seeded our planet with the necessary ingredients for life, and I sure as hell don't care if you think our existence is the unfortunate by-product of a cosmic fart warped in divinity. All of these untestable, and hence unfalsifiable, theories don't fall under the realm of science. No person of reasonable intelligence, with a technical degree, should have trouble distinguishing between a scientific theory, and the infinite number of theories that can be generated on a whim to fill various scientific pot-holes. The fact that science hasn't yet provided an answer for many of the observables that fall under the realm of physical reality, isn't justification to resort to a supernatural explanation of events. The fact that biochemists haven't yet zoned in on every mechanism that constitutes gene regulation, doesn't mean a logical explanation is beyond our grasp, and that a different line of reasoning is in order. If scientists had chosen to apply this ill-conceived approach in the past, throwing their hands up at every turn only to fall back on the vague and unapproachable, we would have never come to understand the many things that modern science easily provides explanation for.

 

[arashinho]

i agree 100%. problem is some scientists without the proper knowledge and an agenda defend ID. i don't have time right now but i will provide some links later and hope to get into a good discussion. check out this site though:

http://www.reasons.org/

they scour through scientific literature to find evidence for ID or creationism. one of my papers was cited as a "reason to believe."

 

[godlesscommie]

they scour through scientific literature to find evidence for ID or creationism. one of my papers was cited as a "reason to believe."

Out of curiousity, can you explain their line of reasoning, and possibly pm me a pubmed link to the paper in question?

 

[houman]

I think a lot of the scientific papers they cite, are taken out of contex or are quoted falsely just to promote their agenda. It's funny how they change their label everytime they try to make attacks at the scientific community and/or evolution. Call it creationism or intelligent design, or incredulous dellusionists, they'll the same. As godlesscommie (great un btw) said, if such simplistic approach was taken up by science, everytime a scientist faces a hard and challenging quandary, it would have been much easier for them to stop and say, "I can't figure this out, uh..., it must be some divine intervention, yes it must be God," how convenient.

Btw I just loved "cosmetic fart" man, that's hilarious!

 

[arashinho]

godless,

i work on bacteria that make small compartments within their cells and make mgntic minerals within those compartments. my interest is at the level of cell biology. their reasoning was that bacteria which are supposed to be the simplest forms of life are very complex as evidenced by our paper. therefore, they must have been designed!

here is the pubmed link and their link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15004275&query_hl=1

http://www.reasons.org/resources/new_reasons/200403.shtml

 

[godlesscommie]

It looks like an interesting paper, although I haven't been able to spend much time on it yet. I have no qualm with individuals who believe aspects of science help reaffirm their faith in a creator (in some form). Although, this is a far cry from those who believe their faith is the logical by-product of said science. As in the case you've cited, the only thing that allows them to make the jump from the nature of compartmentalization in bacteria, to the notion that a creator is implied, is the philosophical premise that complexity is the by-product of conscious design. A self-fulfilling assumption on a preposterous scale. Aside from the fact that the argument isn't a scientific one, the premise it's built upon is left purposefully vague. Concepts like "intelligence" and "complexity" can only be defined in relative terms, and no objective qualities are ever ascribed to the "creator" they claim everything points to.

I'm sure there are countless other accomplished scientists, like yourself, who have their work placed under a non-scientific lens powered by an agenda.

 

[Khorus]

It looks like an interesting paper, although I haven't been able to spend much time on it yet. I have no qualm with individuals who believe aspects of science help reaffirm their faith in a creator (in some form). Although, this is a far cry from those who believe their faith is the logical by-product of said science. As in the case you've cited, the only thing that allows them to make the jump from the nature of compartmentalization in bacteria, to the notion that a creator is implied, is the philosophical premise that complexity is the by-product of conscious design. A self-fulfilling assumption on a preposterous scale. Aside from the fact that the argument isn't a scientific one, the premise it's built upon is left purposefully vague. Concepts like "intelligence" and "complexity" can only be defined in relative terms, and no objective qualities are ever ascribed to the "creator" they claim everything points to.

I'm sure there are countless other accomplished scientists, like yourself, who have their work placed under a non-scientific lens powered by an agenda.

The highlighted line is where the "leap of faith" leads these folks astray!! People, just because something is complex doesn't mean it had a concsciousness behind it!! Evolution, in itself is a rather complex process! These people irritate the hell out of me, more so in their adamancy that there is no other explanation than a divine being who created all this, than their faith in such a being. I don't normally pay too much attention to them, until they come knocking at my door, but maybe I should read some of these articles to see what they are up to now!?

 

[ashtar]

If I see another "letter to the editor" in our student paper, in defense of intelligent design as a scientific endeavor, I will lose all faith in the quality of instruction students receive at the undergraduate level. I don't care if you think a large bearded white man in the sky created everything with a wave his middle finger, I don't care if you believe extraterrestrials seeded our planet with the necessary ingredients for life, and I sure as hell don't care if you think our existence is the unfortunate by-product of a cosmic fart warped in divinity. All of these untestable, and hence unfalsifiable, theories don't fall under the realm of science. No person of reasonable intelligence, with a technical degree, should have trouble distinguishing between a scientific theory, and the infinite number of theories that can be generated on a whim to fill various scientific pot-holes. The fact that science hasn't yet provided an answer for many of the observable that fall under the realm of physical reality, isn't justification to resort to a supernatural explanation of events. The fact that biochemists haven't yet zoned in on every mechanism that constitutes gene regulation doesn't mean a logical explanation is beyond our grasp, and that a different line of reasoning is in order. If scientists had chosen to apply this ill-conceived approach in the past, throwing their hands up at every turn only to fall back on the vague and unapproachable, we would have never come to understand the many things that modern science easily provides explanation for.

What is your definition of scientific theory?

Are metaphysics and other such ideas, which can not yet stand the rigors of scientific method with the current scientific tools, scientific theories or just philosophical beliefs?

What constitutes intelligence? Does intelligence only exist within tangible physical world or is it possible for various forms of energy to have intelligence and thus affect various forms of matter on purpose as opposed to merely randomly?

I think the main difference arises in how one decides to answer the above questions. I have no problem with the stance that "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory because it fails to fulfill the rigors of scientific method. But by the same token I think the theory of evolution as the source of all life on earth ought to be omitted from being taught in science classes because it too fails the rigors of scientific method miserably.

There is no doubt that evolution exists on some scale and can be observed and in fact scientifically tested. But you have to agree that connecting Miller's "protein-formation" to Darwin's evolution takes a huge leap of faith. A leap of faith probably as grand as a "large bearded white man in the sky creating everything with a wave of his middle finger."

 

[houman]

Evolution can by no means be compared with religion. True, evolution is called a theory, by the mere fact that there is absolutely no way for us to reconstruct thousand, heck million years of evolution on a single day, or a year, or whatever, such is purely impractical and impossible. However, there exists evidence, in the form of fossils, in the form of ancient DNA, modern DNA, viral and bacterial evolution, and so on and so forth. To insinuate that evolution requires the incredible leap of faith that religion necessitates is improper to say the least.

 

[godlesscommie]

What is your definition of scientific theory?

In part, a scientific theory is a testable, logically self-consistent model. In the words of Stephen Hawking: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

Are metaphysics and other such ideas, which can not yet stand the rigors of scientific method with the current scientific tools, scientific theories or just philosophical beliefs?

They are not scientific theories, because they deal with things beyond the scope of science (and many would argue, the nonexistent). There is nothing in the physical realm (i.e. the measurable) which points to a "metaphysical" explanation of gauged events. Metaphysics, in accordance to its very own definition, can never qualify as science.

What constitutes intelligence? Does intelligence only exist within tangible physical world or is it possible for various forms of energy to have intelligence and thus affect various forms of matter on purpose as opposed to merely randomly?

Intelligence is a word. I don't really want to get into a vague, seemingly arbitrary discussion on how humans perceive the subjective.

I think the main difference arises in how one decides to answer the above questions. I have no problem with the stance that "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory because it fails to fulfill the rigors of scientific method.

At least we agree on this much.

But by the same token I think the theory of evolution as the source of all life on earth ought to be omitted from being taught in science classes because it too fails the rigors of scientific method miserably.

No, it doesn't, and the scientific community (through peer review concensus) begs to differ.

There is no doubt that evolution exists on some scale and can be observed and in fact scientifically tested. But you have to agree that connecting Miller's "protein-formation" to Darwin's evolution takes a huge leap of faith. A leap of faith probably as grand as a "large bearded white man in the sky creating everything with a wave of his middle finger."

The difference is in the fact that "Darwin's evolution" theory inherently makes thousands of bold, testable predictions about the nature of life on earth. Miller's oil drop experiment is only one thread in the larger fabric of experimental observables that remain consistent with the currently favored model of evolution. As long as it remains the only harmonious model which provides explanation for the countless experiments that have been performed since its inception as a theory, it will be taught in science classrooms. If a plethora of research papers display some form of contradition in the current model, the model will either evolve, or it will die off. That is the nature of the discipline.

 

[ashtar]

Evolution can by no means be compared with religion. True, evolution is called a theory, by the mere fact that there is absolutely no way for us to reconstruct thousand, heck million years of evolution on a single day, or a year, or whatever, such is purely impractical and impossible. However, there exists evidence, in the form of fossils, in the form of ancient DNA, modern DNA, viral and bacterial evolution, and so on and so forth. To insinuate that evolution requires the incredible leap of faith that religion necessitates is improper to say the least.

Like I said, there is no doubt that evolution exists in some scale and in fact it can be observed. However, there is a huge difference between claiming that an already existing complex machinery can evolve to adapt to environmental changes and claiming that because evolution exists on that level then it must be so that pure elements like Carbon and Nitrogen randomly evolved in to complex machines capable of further evolving.

It is one thing to say that a certain computer program can evolve by learning from and adapting to various inputs from its surrounding. It is however, a completely different matter to suggest that because the computer program can evolve then it must be so that the original computer itself came to being by mere random evolution of various existing particles.

 

[houman]

I would respond by quoting godlesscommie jan,

The difference is in the fact that "Darwin's evolution" theory inherently makes thousands of bold, testable predictions about the nature of life on earth. Miller's oil drop experiment is only one thread in the larger fabric of experimental observables that remain consistent with the currently favored model of evolution. As long as it remains the only harmonious model which provides explanation for the countless experiments that have been performed since its inception as a theory, it will be taught in science classrooms. If a plethora of research papers display some form of contradition in the current model, the model will either evolve, or it will die off. That is the nature of the discipline.

And let me add, evolution is existant on the simplest of life forms, and how can you get simpler than viruses. You must agree that viruses are in a constant rate of change, and the HIV is the primest example of them all. The fact is, however, that research in the field of beginning of life is still continuing at a painstaking rate. But incredible revelation have been made as to the genetic inheritance of the earliest life systems, mainly RNA as a mean of inheritance (there are infact examples of such life worm already present) or even proteins. There are gaps to be filled, regarding how life got its roots, however, evolutionary theory have been able to withstand numerous rigorous scientific experiments throughout the past century, while intelligent design and/or creationism wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[ashtar]

In part, a scientific theory is a testable, logically self-consistent model. [/size]In the words of Stephen Hawking: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

By your and Hawking's definition then, "intelligent design" can be considered as much of scientific THEORY as evolution (that is, evolution as the source of life and not evolution of existing beings). "Intelligent design" follows a logical pattern based on some presumed premises, it is "self-consistent", it "describes a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only" one "arbitrary element". And it has been able to make predictions about future observations. Based on the theory of "intelligent design" human beings were meant to be superior to all other creatures. And to date after billions of years of evolution we see that humans have been able to time after time outsmart all other forms of life on this earth despite almost every other form of life outnumbering humans and thus by sheer chance alone being expected to evolve in to more intelligent being than humans which to date they have not.

They are not scientific theories, because they deal with things beyond the scope of science (and many would argue, the nonexistent). There is nothing in the physical realm (i.e. the measurable) which points to a "metaphysical" explanation of gauged events. Metaphysics, in accordance to its very own definition, can never qualify as science.

with all due respect there was a time when quantom physics and even simple ideas (by today's standards) such as existance of organism not visible to eye causing illness were also beyond the scope of science of the time. The reasoning that an idea can not be considered science because it is out of the realm of current scienctific tools and understanding is not satisfactory.

Intelligence is a word. I don't really want to get into a vague, seemingly arbitrary discussion on how humans perceive the subjective.

How can you argue against a theory that is based on and in fact called "INTELLIGENT" design and not be willing to discuss or consider what constitutes intelligence?

No, it doesn't, and the scientific community (through peer review concensus) begs to differ.

that's the kind of reasoning they used against Galilleo as well. As someone who is in the field of science you should not need a reminder of the many times in the history of science where scientific community (despite peer review concensus) has been wrong in begging to differ with an opposing idea.

The difference is in the fact that "Darwin's evolution" theory inherently makes thousands of bold, testable predictions about the nature of life on earth. Miller's oil drop experiment is only one thread in the larger fabric of experimental observables that remain consistent with the currently favored model of evolution. As long as it remains the only harmonious model which provides explanation for the countless experiments that have been performed since its inception as a theory, it will be taught in science classrooms. If a plethora of research papers display some form of contradition in the current model, the model will either evolve, or it will die off. That is the nature of the discipline.

No my friend. Miller's experiment is the loose thread holding a loosely woven fabric that if pulled will pull the entire fabric apart. Like I said a number of times by now, Darwin's theory of evolution is fine describing certain observations and in a limited scale. But there is a huge gap between Darwin's theory and explaining the origins of life.

Those who teach evolution AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE try to bridge that gap with Miller's experiment. And when their bridge can't close that gap they ask you take a scientific leap of faith between few transiently random proteins and a complex unicellular machinery capable of duplicating itself and sustaining life as we know it.

Like I said before, I have no problem with keeping "intelligent design" out of science classes but by same token and scientific rigors we should keep the theory of evolution AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE out of science classes as well.

 

[arashinho]

and darwin's theory doesn't make a specific claim about how life started. it merely states that through a process of mutation and natural selection new species are formed and that explains the vast abundance of life forms on earth today. there has never been a credible challenge to darwin's theory of evolution. if you have some i would love to hear it.

 

[ashtar]

I would respond by quoting godlesscommie jan,

And let me add, evolution is existant on the simplest of life forms, and how can you get simpler than viruses. You must agree that viruses are in a constant rate of change, and the HIV is the primest example of them all. The fact is, however, that research in the field of beginning of life is still continuing at a painstaking rate. But incredible revelation have been made as to the genetic inheritance of the earliest life systems, mainly RNA as a mean of inheritance (there are infact examples of such life worm already present) or even proteins. There are gaps to be filled, regarding how life got its roots, however, evolutionary theory have been able to withstand numerous rigorous scientific experiments throughout the past century, while intelligent design and/or creationism wouldn't stand a chance.

1st of all weather viruses can be considered living organism is an issue for significant debate within scientific community leading to philosophical discussions as I'm sure you are already aware.

2nd, you keep repeating the same mistake. I AM NOT arguing against the validity or existence of "evolution" on certain scale and in ALREADY EXISTING COMPLEX BEINGS. But as I keep saying, that observation is not the same as ORIGINS of LIFE.

You keep claiming that the theory of evolution has been able to withstand numerous scientific experiments. But show me one, just one, experiment where you see random elements randomly EVOLVING to form complex machinery or complex organisms. In fact, forget about random elements. Show me one experiment where putting amino acids together would randomly lead to evolution of complex organisms.

Why is it that when you see a metallic computerized robot you have no problem in at least considering the possibility of an "intelligent design" in its creation but if you see an organic machinery you insist that there is ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for considering an "intelligent design"?

 

[ashtar]

and darwin's theory doesn't make a specific claim about how life started.

No it doesn't. But almost every science class (at least in the US) tries to use Darwin's theory in to teaching how human beings came in to evolving from a single-cell organisms. And when you ask them well how did that first single-cell organism came in to being they try to tell you that it too evolved from random proteins coming together and some how forming various complex structures like RNA, nucleus, cell wall, cytoplasm, etc. And when you ask well where did those proteins come from they refer you to Miller's experiment.

However, without directly asking they expect you to take that huge leaps of faith is in two places:

A) From Miller's experiment you are expected to take a huge leap and accept that random TRANSIENTLY-EXISTING amino acids will come together to form complex proteins. They expect you to forget about entropy and laws of thermodynamics and instead believe that random elements on earth gathered the energy on earth billions of years ago to randomly come together to form complex structures that actually required active input of energy to hold them together and sustain them.

B) from point A you are expected to take another leap of faith and apply Darwin's theory of evolution (which has only been proven in LIVING COMPLEX BEINGS) to non-living organic material. The proponents of evolution (as origin of life) tell you well, the same way that a living bacteria can evolve to be resistant to penicillin one can assume that non-living proteins can also evolve to be RNA or DNA!! By there analogy the theory of evolution can also explain how a bunch of resistors and capacitors randomly came together to form the computer that you are using now.

 

[houman]

As arashinho have said already, we're talking about Darwinian evolutionary theory, we're not talking about origions of life. Although I stated some interesting discoveries regarding this matter, however that's a different discussion and does not pertain to the current one. And if you aren't aruging against the validity of the existence of "evolution" on existing complex beings, then I'm not sure why are you arguing for intelligent design.

As regarding viruses being considered a life form, you're right, it depends on who you talk to you, virologist believe they are (surprise), while some other scientist disagree. Nevertheless, they are evolving.

Why is it that when you see a metallic computerized robot you have no problem in at least considering the possibility of an "intelligent design" in its creation but if you see an organic machinery you insist that there is ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for considering an "intelligent design"?

Because if I crack open the metallic computerized robot, somewhere in there it says, "made in japan," if I crack open a human being or any other species, I find DNA.

 

[godlesscommie]

By your and Hawking's definition then, "intelligent design" can be considered as much of scientific THEORY as evolution (that is, evolution as the source of life and not evolution of existing beings).

I'm not sure what definition you glossed over on your own time, but "Intelligent Design" comes no where close to fulfilling the requirements of the definition that I provided. You must have missed the part where Dr. Hawking specified "few arbitrary elements", and "definite predictions".

"Intelligent design" follows a logical pattern based on some presumed premises, it is "self-consistent",

It may be logical within its own frame of reference, but it is not the logical by-product of the countless sources of experimental data available to scientists. For a theory to be "self-consistent" [in this context], it must allow for no contradictions between observables and sets of its own definitive predictions, and it must also be consistent within its own modular frame. In the case of ID, the latter is a non-issue, since the "theory" makes only one claim. Because a simple notion can't be in direct contradiction with itself, the point is moot.

it "describes a large class of observations

No, it does not. Intelligent design doesn't provide for or describe, in a scientifically detailed manner, the class of observations that fall under its domain. A theory "desribing" something, is not one in the same with a theory "allowing for something".

on the basis of a model that contains only" one "arbitrary element."

That one arbitrary element, is a vague and subjective declaration, not the underpinnings of a scientific theory. Furthermore, it's the only declaration.

And it has been able to make predictions about future observations. Based on the theory of "intelligent design" human beings were meant to be superior to all other creatures...

You totally missed the ball here. The fact that humans are "superior" to all other creatures, is a [subjective] observation, not a definitive prediction made by a theoretical model. In order to test for ID-based predictions, ID itself has to first be defined with an exactness that would allow for various predictions to naturally arise from its premises.

with all due respect there was a time when quantom physics and even simple ideas (by today's standards) such as existance of organism not visible to eye causing illness were also beyond the scope of science of the time.

Are you even reading what I'm typing? The difference between the "quantum physics" revolution, and the scope and nature of metaphysics are vast. This doesn't even warrant discussion. The former was the by-product of research activity, theoretical models being proposed, experiments being carried out, various hypotheses being thrown around, predictions being made, contradictions arising, and models evolving over time. There was no vague, top-down approach.

The reasoning that an idea can not be considered science because it is out of the realm of current scienctific tools and understanding is not satisfactory.

It is perfectly satisfactory. If something falls outside the realm of our current physical reality (as it can be registered and measured), it falls outside the realm of science. Any person with three functioning neurons can make unfalsifiable predictions and declarations outside the realm of testable science, but don't expect it to be taught alongside the things that fall within the grasp of the scientific method.

How can you argue against a theory that is based on and in fact called "INTELLIGENT" design and not be willing to discuss or consider what constitutes intelligence?

How can you defend something as a "scientific" theory, when its most prominently featured premise (it's only premise, really) is a subjective word? What the word "intelligence" means, and how it should be defined in various disciplines and contexts, falls under the realm of philosophy and the study of linguistics.

What you fail to realize is that poorly defined, unfalsifiable "theories" like ID can be generated on an infinite scale, at an infinite pace. In fact, while we're at it, why don't we throw out some "theories" of our own.
Benevolent design: The idea that a "benevolent" creator serves as the machinery for life on our planet.
Pimp design: The idea that life on our planet arose from the work of a horny, gold-toothed black man.
These theories deserve just as much time in the classroom as ID.

that's the kind of reasoning they used against Galilleo as well. As someone who is in the field of science you should not need a reminder of the many times in the history of science where scientific community (despite peer review concensus) has been wrong in begging to differ with an opposing idea.

Science is a methodology. Until you clearly understand what science is, you won't understand why your argument has little merit or relevance. As I've already explained, evolution is a scientifically supported theory, because virtually all experimental results have remained consistent with its detailed, predictive model. If studies arise that expose contradictions in the theory, it will fall out of scientific favor, and it will be modified. Just as humans have evolved over time, scientific theory evolves over time. The key is that theories evolve in accordance with scientific methodology, not the wants, needs, or delusions of the human population.

No my friend. Miller's experiment is the loose thread holding a loosely woven fabric that if pulled will pull the entire fabric apart.

This comment disqualifies you from making comments on evolution. You obviously aren't up to par with current research. There are at least a dozen new experimental papers that come out every single day, rapidly filling the "gap" you allude to.

Like I said a number of times by now, Darwin's theory of evolution is fine describing certain observations and in a limited scale. But there is a huge gap between Darwin's theory and explaining the origins of life.

Go here, type in "evolution", and search. Educate yourself on the topic, then get back to me. The theory of evolution (not limited to microevolution), is better supported than the classical Newtonian theory of gravity.

Those who teach evolution AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE try to bridge that gap with Miller's experiment.

First of all no science professor teaches evolution "as the source of life". They teach it as the most likely model for the evolution of modern species from the earth's early primordial environment, which it is, just as a physicist will teach the big bang as the most likely model for the origin of our universe.

And when their bridge can't close that gap they ask you take a scientific leap of faith between few transiently random proteins and a complex unicellular machinery capable of duplicating itself and sustaining life as we know it.

Firstly, that bridge isn't nearly as large as you pretend, most of its "steps" are fairly well established. Secondly, you misuse the word "faith". It's not a "leap of faith" to connect closely associated dots, it's called extrapolation, whereby the extrapolatd model holds weight until a link between two "dots" is broken. In the case of evolution, those links are only getting stronger and more consistent with the general theory.

Like I said before, I have no problem with keeping "intelligent design" out of science classes but by same token and scientific rigors we should keep the theory of evolution AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE out of science classes as well.

First you were trying to defend ID as a theory in the scientific tradition, and now you agree it doesn't belong in science classrooms. Scientists teach the most well-established experimental models, end of discussion.

 

[ashtar]

As arashinho have said already, we're talking about Darwinian evolutionary theory, we're not talking about origions of life.

No my friend it's the other way around. we're talking about origins of life and the different theories that ought to or not be taught in science classes.

I'm arguing that if you are willing to teach Darwin's theory of evolution as possible explanation for origins of life in a science class then you ought to teach "intelligent design" as well. Because they both meat the same amount of scientific rigor in explaining the origin of life (which is to say none).

Or the other option is to just teach Darwin's theory of evolution as observed within each species (and not to try to link humans to having evolved from bacteria) and instead teach both "intelligent design" and "evolution theory" as the origins of life in a philosophy class.

Because if I crack open the metallic computerized robot, somewhere in there it says, "made in japan," if I crack open a human being or any other species, I find DNA.

cute but not convincing.

 

[arashinho]

how does entropy invalidated evolution?