Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

Hi, ICdesign. Sure thing.----- I think it does matter.The analogy you gave was of a guy who had a bunch of parts and a specific task to complete.The theory we propose for evolution is without a specific task to complete. So, it would be more akin to Mr Chance being given a pile of assorted stuff and being told to build something that works, and having Mr Selection stand over him and test it at each step to determine whether or not it works.So, Mr Chance isn't told that it has to have four wheels, or that it has to be a vehicle for transportation, or that it has to run on gas, or that it has to have a manual transmission with forward and reverse gears. Rather, he's simply told that it has to work.-----Now, in terms of real-world evolution, "something that works" implies an something that survives and reproduces. Outside of those two standards, there are no rules about what the end-product must be.Of course, like Percy said, feedback from the environment can later make the standards of survival and reproduction include some specific requirements.For example, if a new predator arrives, than the standard of survival will include the requirement of a way to deal with that predator. But, even then, no specific way of dealing with the predator is required: the only requirement is that the predator be dealt with. So, adaptations for fast running, or heavy protective armor, or adaptations to live in the dark or to hide in a burrow, could all be ways to successfully avoid the predator, and thereby meet the "survival" standard.-----Other examples of specific requirements added by environmental feedback may be:

1. A well-protected food source, for which the "survival" standard requires a means to circumvent the defenses
2. Females being choosy about the males they mate with, for which the "reproduction" standard requires males to meet whatever ridiculous expectations the females may have (sound familiar to anyone? )
3. A seasonal dynamic in which food resources are scarce and the weather is harsh for several months out of the year, for which the "survival" standard requires a means to adapt to or avoid the difficult season.

And, the list goes on. You can see that there is not necessarily a single "right" answer to any of these dilemmas, which provides ample opportunity for different evolutionary "solutions" to arise in response to the same challenge. For instance:

1. Some animals may adapt to a well-protected food source by finding a new food source, while others may develop mouthparts that can circumvent the food's defenses.
2. Some males do their best to meet the females' expectations, while others find ways to cheat, sneak or force their way into the action.
3. Some animals develop physiological adaptations to tolerate cold and starvation, while others migrate away from poor conditions.

This is why evolution doesn't work toward a specified end-product: because it doesn't "know" beforehand what challenges each lineage will face or how each lineage is going to respond to these challenges. Each lineage has to address the challenges as they come, and, furthermore, the response of one lineage to one challenge can easily create a new challenge that another lineage has to respond to. It can be very messy, very dynamic and very unpredictable, so we should also expect the end-products to be messy, dynamic and unpredictable. Thus, they shouldn't be specifiable beforehand.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Actually, no I don't. All you guys seem to be talking about survival of the fittest for up and running, fully developed creatures. What I have been trying to get to is the construction process of creatures to begin with.This whole "self-improvement" program the ToE adheres to is bogus in what would be an impersonal, purposeless and wholly material universe anyway.It should be mentioned here that even among evolutionary theorists there remains widespread disagreement. Because one offspring survives instead of another may not mean it has greater evolutionary potential. The lucky chicken that survived the hungry fox's nocturnal raid on the chicken coop may well have been suffering from insomnia on that night. Survival of the fittest thus becomes "survival of those that survive," which doesn't tell us a great deal.At any rate lets get back to my point of construction, Mr. Chance and your original question of why I think ToE is impossible. In my analogy Mr. Chance would have a chance of success be it ever so slight, correct.
But now lets paint a more accurate analogy of reality and take away Mr. Chances brain all together. No thought. Nothing but a blank screen. What are his chances of building anything now? Zero right? It would be completely impossible.
Evolution is Mr. Chance with no brain. It wouldn't matter if there WAS a Mr. Selection because without thought nothing can happen. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE !! How can evolution build anything if all it has is a blank screen. It comes right back to being so simple a child should be able to understand.ICI have to run but I would like to talk more about the aforementioned systems and purpose when I return tomorrow.

I thought we were talking about the construction process? Mr. chance comes up with the parts, and Mr. Selection tells him when he makes a mistake. Isn't that how the Rolls Royce gets constructed? Why? What does this have to do with anything? About the finer details, yes, not about the "whole picture". Actually, that's exactly what it means. However, you'll find that luck will run out one day, if the chicken survived purely due to luck on one night, does not mean it will survive the next. If the chicken survived because it could outrun the fox (just an example), then its chances of surviving the next night are very much more improved, and so in turn will its offspring's be. Yes. Well yes, but only because he is a person, and people need brains to pick and choose. Nature (or rather, mutation), is not an intelligent, nor a personal process. no, it isn't really. Evolution is Mr. Chance and Mr. Selection, working together, the one randomly selecting parts, the other telling him if they are wrong. Of course stuff happens without thought, we see it all around us the entire time. Why do you think nothing can happen without thought? Does rain think? But evolution is not a blank screen. Evolution is Mr. Chance and Mr. Selection working together. Of course mate. Whenever you feel like it.Let me know what you think about my "Evolution is Mr. Chance and Mr. Selection working together bit". Are you saying I don;t understand the thing I am trying to "defend" to you? Am I, and everyone else on this thread, so ill-informed over what evolution is that we (who have studied it, let me remind you, maybe not university level, but still), are so "blind" or stupid we got it all wrong?

One of the neat things about Evolution is that there is not just one Mr. Chance, there are billions and billions of them. And the results of all those experiments get filtered and those that work, even just barely work, pass through the filter. It is only those that simply don't work at all that get filtered out. Even the experiments that don't really do anything get through the filter as long as they are not so bad that they prevent the critter from living long enough to reproduce.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi ICdesign, Yes. that's because we are talking about the ToE, which deals with extant organisms, not their first origins. Two answers;a) The "construction process" in the example you have been using is analogous to random mutation and the laws of chemistry.b) We are talking about evolution, not the first origins of life, so the original "construction process" is not part of the analogy. I agree, you are quite right. In an unguided universe there would be no objective value that could be used to define "improvement". That's why evolution is not a matter of "self improvement".Proponents of evolution don't regard the process as "progress". Descendant organisms are not necessarily any "better" or "worse" than ancestral ones; they simply pass through the test of natural selection, maybe with success (offspring) or with failure (no offspring). No value judgement need be made. There really isn't. There is no "widespread disagreement" amongst biologists on any important aspect of the ToE. Leaving aside that the chicken might have a genetic cause for its insomnia...You are right. Sometimes survival is a matter of chance. Sometimes you zig when you shoulda zagged and you pay the price. But that's wrong. Just because chance plays a role, does not mean that natural selection isn't involved. Some organisms are, undeniably, better equipped to survive and reproduce than others. Natural selection can affect these organisms. It is not pure chance or luck. Luck is involved, but natural selection is involved as well. But that's because Mr Chance is just a character in an analogy. You are arguing the analogy, not the argument itself. You have broken your own analogy.Humans can't exist without brains. The blind process of chance can and does. Therefore, your analogy breaks down here. Please stop shouting at people. It really doesn't help.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

All species since the first life have been "up and running, fully developed creatures." You wouldn't say amoeba or algae aren't fully developed, right? You wouldn't say starfish or swordfish or frogs or toads aren't fully developed, right? You wouldn't say platypus or meerkats or bonobos aren't fully developed, right?In fact, can you think of any organism that isn't fully developed?Of course not! And neither can we.So why do you have this crazy idea that evolution requires that fully formed organisms evolve from half-formed creatures? Mr. Chance's brain is not a valid part of the analogy. Mr. Chance putting parts together randomly is analogous to mutations randomly altering parts of the genome. Mutations do not require thought.The analogy to removing Mr. Chance's brain would be to prohibit mutations. In other words, it would make no sense.The purpose of an analogy is to make something unfamiliar easier to understand by likening it to something familiar. Everyone is familiar with people, so constructing analogies to the natural world using people is a very common way of explaining things, but the fact that people are intelligent is rarely part of the analogy, and certainly not in the analogy of Mr. Chance and Mr. Selection.Did you see my comparison of breeding (people make the breeding decisions) to natural selection (the environment makes the breeding decisions) in Message 401? This comparison should be pretty helpful in understanding that there's no intent and purpose in nature.--Percy

Of course. I just want to keep it simple with one Mr. Chance for this example for now, elaborations can always follow the basics.

Like Percy states above, there is no such thing as a "not fully formed" organism. Secondly, of course we are focusing on up and running organisms. Dead organisms do not evolve. What tests did you run to determine that natural selection is bogus? Such a statement usually warrants a description of what scientists disagree on. Scientists do agree that natural selection is a real and viable mechanism. So what exactly is this disagreement over? Populations evolve, not individuals. On average, the less fit do have fewer offspring than the more fit. This can be predicted beforehand, before a population is challenged by selective pressure. To use an oft cited example, you can predict beforehand that dark moths will survive at a higher rate than light moths in an environment where the trees are themselves dark. What this tells us is that ratios of alleles will change in response to environmental pressures. How is this not important information? Then your analogy is a poor one since we observe organisms without brains evolving in real time. We see random mutations that confer antibiotic resistance spreading through populations by evolutionary mechanisms minus any brains. You have just admitted that your analogy is irrelevant to biology.

On an earlier post you stated that you understood the TOE. This comment clearly shows that you in fact do not understand the TOE.You should probably learn about the theory before you continue posting.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Evolution is full of nothing but double speak. It has no thought, no purpose. no intent, yet constructs all the sophisticated systems that make up life.In the real world a system cannot be built without intelligent thought and action yet you choose to believe evolution is capable of doing so. You can't produce any evidence or model of this impossible feat taking place anywhere on the planet.The best I have ever seen any of you offer is some insignificant little bacteria mutation that shows nothing of how a sophisticated system can construct without intelligence.Please save your "what is your test for a sophisticated system" comments.
That may be valid questioning in your opinion Percy, but its only valid to evolutionists because you have no evidence as to how evolution can produce systems so you play shell games and create a maze of smoke and mirrors that you hide behind.Maybe survival of the fittest is a good enough magic bullet to explain how the impossible became possible for you guys, but it just isn't working for me.

Which is fine, but until you can present a model that explains what is seen better than the current model, you have nothing.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I can prove all day long that it takes intelligence to build a system. The burden of proof is on you to show it can be done without intelligence. Its you who has nothing!

Hi ICdesign,There's not much point to starting the discussion over again from the beginning. We *are* making progress. Do you think you could take a stab at responding to some of the specifics of what people have recently posted in their responses to you?--Percy

The ironic thing is that you will now equivocate (in a sense 'double speak') about what 'thought', 'purpose', 'intent', 'construct', 'sophisticated', 'system' and 'life' all mean - or rely on too broad a definition. Oh...that didn't take long, did it.

I did respond Percy. Why don't you respond with evidence that a sophisticated system can be created without intelligence? All your survival of the fittest theory can show is death of the unfit.