[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Another brick in the wall. You accept, in fact advocate, that they have identifiable similar functions, and that one is obviously the result of intentional design, yet fervently dismiss the relevance to the other. Bottles hold fluids, so do tetra packs. Just because they differ dramatically physically has nothing to do with one not being designed to perform similar tasks. They both are.

However bottles and tetra packs are not so dramatically different. Their materials are different and their shape can differ, but ultimately they both have the required physical attributes of a sealable, water-tight container. So does much of nature. So on one hand we still have something clearly designed, and on the other something which performs the same function and might have a mystical designer, but the evidence points to evolution.

Secondly, the comparison between two objects with similar physical attributes which allow them to perform the same function doesn't apply to a comparison of the physical components of computers and the brain. A computer has one main processing unit (made up of millions of transistors) while the brain has trillions of individual cells working together in immensely complex ways. There is no similarity at the physical level. Also, a computer is an extremely fast, serial processor. The brain is a comparatively slow, massively parallel processor. So while they perform what seems to be a similar function, it's similar only at the highest level (there's very little that's similar about the ways in which computers and brains actually process information).

So yes, we can ask if the brain was designed, but we can't look at a computer to answer that question.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Some people go as far as asserting that cells are in fact robots.

Are you sure you're not confusing analogy with definition?

Originally Posted by Uplift

When computers and robots evolved to what they are today, was it the result of random mutation, or conscious design and intent? Again many people parade the fact of computers and robots evolution, and even lay claim to it. Then many of the same people fervently dismiss the possibility of a designer in the evolution of minds and life and cells.

Probably because the designer is an unverifiable dismissal of any attempt at explanation. Did those who believe in a designer do anything to try to understand all the evidence that science has accumulated before they felt threatened by science's explanations. Did they even notice what they were seeing, what Darwin revealed to the world?