If I remember correctly, SETI is not looking for an ordered signal but a signal using the same frequencies we use. They are taking their lead from something we have an example of and is most reasonable given the distances involved. They are assuming that, because we have yet to see it happen naturally, those frequencies are more likely to be used by intelligence than by nature. Even if they receive a signal in the range expected, from what I have read they will first assume that it is a naturally occurring signal and look to natural explanations first.
"Yet at the same time, these evolution beliving SETI scientists, turn around and suggest that the simplest life form we have found, which contains many times more programming source code and data arrays than a 10 minute Youtube video, came about purely through Darwinian evolution.
Scientists are not considering a complex life form such as what we find now but a much simpler self replicating molecule. Nor are they attempting to find the molecule that is our ancestor, just a molecule which self replicates and develops the attributes of life. Current evolutionary thought has surpassed Darwinian theory. Darwin's theory is the basis for what we now believe but that theory has been expanded considerably.
Yet they have no problem assuming life arose from natural causes. Look at me, I've got cake and I'm eating it too.
Scientists are not considering a complex life form such as what we find now but a much simpler self replicating molecule.
Can you think of a single invention by man that is a "self replicating" anything? I cannot conceive of anything in the physical world that man has designed that is self-replicating. Can you?
Software code can be written such that it is self replicating. However, this software is entirely dependent upon the existence of the hardware for which it run. Software cannot be coded to replicate itself without the existence of the hardware. Furthermore, the initial replication code will have to write itself! This is why I think mathematicians, programmers and engineers are less likely to be evolutionists than pure scientists. I would love to see this polled, but given the evolution is god mentality of academia, I hold out no hope an accurate poll of this could be taken.
Therefore, the "much simpler self-replicating molecule" is still dependent upon the hardware and software sides of the entire molecule if it is to work. If this is not the case, please provide a real world or realistic theoretical example which replicates itself? You'd think with the rich diversity of life forms on this planet, these real world examples would be everywhere.
I'd tried telling my boss that my next code assignment will write itself through evolution. He told me "good, at least the work will get done on schedule".