Sal

My own view is that if cells are computers, they are in no way comparable to the computers that we build.

Here is a different look at the convergence of man-made DNA computers and ID-made DNA computers: How DNA Computers Will Work

You won’t believe where scientists have found the new material they need to build the next generation of microprocessors. Millions of natural supercomputers exist inside living organisms, including your body. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules, the material our genes are made of, have the potential to perform calculations many times faster than the world’s most powerful human-built computers. DNA might one day be integrated into a computer chip to create a so-called biochip that will push computers even faster. DNA molecules have already been harnessed to perform complex mathematical problems.

Ahh, but again, this article could be used to prejudice the discussion since the whole issue is whether “natural” computers in the cell are actually designed. Thus, if Shallit appeals to living cells, his argument is disqualified as circular reasoning.

I do believe cells are designed computers, but I don’t use that argument against Shallit. Instead, I only assert that he cannot use the argument that “living cells invalidate the design inference because they are undesigned natural computers.” He must argue his case via another route.

Thank you for participating. Let us for the sake of arugment say cells are computers. Is it then appropriate to call then “natural” or “designed”?

I was merely pointing out if Shallit calls cells computers, and then says cells are natural undesigned entitities, then that is merely a prejudicial characterization, not a provable assertion. He would actually have to demsontrate cells are undesigned to appeal to them as undesigned.

In contrast, I demonstrated ALL his other examples were designed, and thus automatically disqualified. Here are some I didn’t cover which I’ll now include in my post.

Sand Piles

Langton Ants

I do not consider myself to be a “superior intellect” and I am sure you agree with me on that. I suspect you are playing on, or trying to reinforce, the “evolutionist are arrogant” stereotype. FWIW, I am scraping a living as a lowly computer programmer, never worked for Dell, and am by no means any sort of authority on anything.

I’m not sure there is circular reasoning in Scordova’s argument. I just don’t see any real difference between what he implies evolutionists do in his P.S. and what he did in is earlier post. There may be a fundamental difference, but at the moment I don’t see it, which may, or may not be, a failing on my part.

It seems to me, he accuses evolution supporters of arguing “Cells may be computers. Cells are natural. Therefore computers may be natural” while arguing himself “Cells are computers. Computers are designed. Therefore cells are designed”. As I see it, neither is more or less circular than the other, but are of roughly equal merit. To be properly circular he (or we) would need to say something like “Cells are computers, , , therefore cells are computers”. My own view is that if cells are computers, they are in no way comparable to the computers that we build. Does the cell computer have consistant defined instructions? What are they? There may be some equivocation on “computer” on both sides here.

I do wonder why he has switched from ‘fact’ to ‘arguably’, which one is it?

Cells are only arguably computers now? Back in http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1111
you stated it as fact

“Extending these ideas, can we in principle detect nano-molecular designs such as a nano-molecular computer? If we find a physical molecular artifact conforming to the blueprints of a computer, should we infer design?

With that question in mind, I point to the fact that biological systems are computers, and self-replicating computers on top of that! This fact was not lost upon Albert Voie who tied the problem of the origin-of-life to the fact that the physical artifacts of biology conform to a known blueprint, namely, a self-replicating computer. I commented on Voie’s landmark outline of the origin-of-life problem here.”

No circular reasoning there, I take it.

By the way, I’ve heard several amazon reviews appeared denouncing pro-ID books which hadn’t even been published but were set up with place holders in amazon. The Darwinbots swarmed the place holders with negative reviews of things they had not even read. :=)

Salvador
PS
I’m sure the Friends here at UD would be glad to right a letter of recommendation for you. :=)