|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving the Musculoskeletal System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICDESIGN.
ISDESIGN writes: The broken lock IS the evidence and no inference is necessary. Think of this formula:
Evidence --> Conclusion Now, insert the relevant pieces from Percy’s example:
Broken lock --> Burglary Note that the entity that you put in the evidence slot is not the same thing as the entity you put in the conclusion slot. Whenever the entities in the two slots are not the same, inference has occurred. If you didn’t actually see the burglar burglarizing your home, then your conclusion is at least partly derived from inference. Inference is not really a bad thing or a shady or questionable thing: it’s perfectly normal and perfectly reasonable. There is no reason for you to be slandering the good name of inference. -----
ICDESIGN writes: That eye article is nothing more than pointing to eyes on previouscreatures then inferring that is how we ended up with our current eye. Showing a sequence of eyes (or limbs) that can be arranged by their complexity shows you that there are intermediate steps between the extreme values. Thus, if human limbs and joints are perfect, then we have an entire fossil record and living animal kingdom of evolutionary failures that you claim don’t exist, because no other animal has the same limb positions as us. Furthermore, if intermediate forms between two extreme forms of an organ can and do exist, they delineate a pathway that very feasibly represents the pathway that evolution might have taken to transition between the first and the last form in the line. This is the first step any good evolutionist will take in explaining how evolution accounts for any given thing. Once we’ve shown what the pathway is, we can discuss with you the mechanics of getting from one form to the next in more detail. I, unfortunately, will not be going there right now, because I have already wasted too much of my valuable study time on EvC this weekend. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3884 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I have already said that mutations happen and that natural selection happens-people smoke cigarettes and get mutations, and nature might select them either for dying, or from dying because of this condition (the funny thing is the cancer selects them for both.)
The point is not to show that these two functions might have happened, the point is to show that they actually accomplish anything meaningful towards developing life. This you, and everyone else here, and every scientists in the world, can not in any way at all demonstrate. That makes your theory nothing more than fairy tales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: don't you think that one has a duty to, and an interest in, making sure that their conclusions really are justified by the largest amount of knowledge possible? Here is what I think since you asked; I think that no matter how much knowledge you, Crashfrog, obtain, you will never be smart enough to derive the correct conclusions about life and where it came from.As I stated to you before; you are lost in a sea of information with only a toothpick for a life raft. If you were even a fraction as smart as your arrogance has fooled you into believing you are, you would still miss the mark by a mile. You think you have won past arguments because we didn't answer you? The truth is I ignore most of what you say because you are a colossal waste of time. In short; I really don't care what you think because arrogant people such as you make me ill to my stomach. Percy is twice as smart as you will ever be yet is rarely smug about it. Why don't you study his approach and try to humble yourself a little?...Make that a lot! All is this is off topic and the last I have to say about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined:
|
Good post on #62 Bolder-dash and I agree with everything you said 100%
IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22947 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Bolder-dash writes: Then I think in a fair debate, from the beginning you should just admit that there is no way to produce evidence for Rm and Ns, and be clear that any suggestion of these mechanisms is simply inference as you said. All science works through inference. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22947 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
You agree even with the errors? When evolution talks about random mutation and natural selection, it is not talking about the selection of mutations acquired during an organism's lifetime. It is talking about how mutations passed on to offspring affect their survival chances. So Bolder-dash's example of a smoker experiencing mutations that kill them is an incorrect example of how evolution works. The vast majority of mutations acquired by offspring occur in the production of gamete cells by their parents (sperm and egg for animals) or in the union of gamete cells (coming together of sperm and egg for animals). In other words, it isn't the mutations acquired by an organism during it's lifetime that are important to evolution. It's the mutations produced as part of the reproductive process that are acquired by offspring that are important. If I could make a point again that has often been made before, you don't have to accept evolution to understand it. But you do have to understand it before you can make criticisms that make sense. Otherwise you might end up endorsing a wrong-headed post from Bolder-dash. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Their are 206 bones in the adult skeletal system. In which adult skeletal system? In basal chordates (e.g. lancelet) there are muscles without any bones.
How did Evolution create the more than 1200 bones, joints and muscles and manage to put them all in just the right position performing the exact needed functions? Why are my legs just the right length to reach the floor? Why is the shape of the muddy lake bottom just the right shape to fit shape of the water in the lake? Why is the riverbed of the Mississippi just the right shape to fit the river?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Example of mutation giving rise to detectable musculoskeletal change in hominid evolution:
quote: In summary: A mutation in a gene responsible for strong jaw muscles in the hominid lineage resulted in a weaker jaw muscle. This allows for both a weaker jaw bone and weaker bone in the cranium as anchors for this muscle. Without the need for a strong, bony anchor in the cranium the cranium was allowed to grow larger without being comprimised by chewing. This is also seen in the shrinking of the lower jaw in hominids leading to modern humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let's stop and think for a second.
What happens to a critter that is born with joints that don't work, muscles that don't control their limbs, bones too short, long or too weak? It doesn't keep up with the herd, avoid predators, it dies; it does not get to pass along its genes. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think that no matter how much knowledge you, Crashfrog, obtain, you will never be smart enough to derive the correct conclusions about life and where it came from. That's great, and thanks for once again needlessly impugning my intelligence, but that's not at all what I asked, is it? Nobody was talking about intelligence, we were talking about knowledge. But, you've pretty clearly articulated your standpoint, which is that you believe that increased knowledge doesn't illuminate issues, it simply confuses things to know more, and therefore a complete neophyte in any field is the only one who is going to be able to accurately apprehend the truth. Would you say that's accurate? If so why are you here asking questions? Doesn't asking us questions simply expose you to the danger of learning something that would, from your perspective, simply obscure the real biological truth that you're able to see, unencumbered in any way by an opaque weight of formal knowledge? Help that make sense to me. If learning and knowledge is so antithetical to truth, why are you asking us questions about what we know? Your questions aren't going to make us forget what we know, but they might expose you to new information. Isn't that incredibly dangerous for your continued ability to see what is true?
Percy is twice as smart as you will ever be yet is rarely smug about it. Why don't you study his approach and try to humble yourself a little? Well, sure. Help me understand Percy's approach. Here's his most recent advice to you:
quote: And here's the remarks by me that you apparently found so "arrogant" that they made you ill:
Why do you continue to pretend that you can engage in criticism of a field that you do not evince even the slightest interest in actually learning about? Don't you see how, at the very least, you're at a tactical disadvantage when you allow yourself to be the person in these discusssions who knows the least about biology? I'm certainly more direct than Percy but the sentiments being expressed, here, would seem to be exactly the same. I thought the last bit, especially, would be particularly helpful to you. Can you (or Percy, for that matter) explain how what he's saying is somehow more palatable than what I said? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined:
|
Percy writes: It feels like what you would find helpful would be if someone did for, say, the evolution of the knee joint what the Wikipedia article on the Evolution of the eye does for the evolution of the eye. Do I have that right? Thank you for offering to give me the knee "lol" and I would love to here how evolution invented the knee along with all the muscles, soft cartilage interiors and buffering fluids that help give it smooth function but I would rather fast forward and address a much, much more problematic issue for evolutionists. Besides the over 1200 components briefly mentioned previously, we also need to acknowledge all the other systems that directly support the Musculoskeletal system and in fact could not exist without the following;The Neurological System; The Respiratory System and The Circulatory System. And lets not overlook that little thing called the Brain. The FACT is my friend, every system within our bodies is dependent on each other for survival.This is the fundamental underlying common sense test I mentioned earlier that ToE fails 100%! ToE states everything slowly developed over eons of time step by step. I know this isn't a revelation for most of you but its time to quit sweeping this issue under the carpet. This is the big elephant in the evolutionary living room! Which order did the systems evolve and how would they survive the development process when they have to be complete to survive?This is why smart people come to the conclusion that organisms had to come into existence suddenly, completely formed with all systems up and running....thus, there has to be a Creator. Crashfrog tried to say in the recent past that the Brain, eyes, flesh and the skull all evolved at the same time which shows how dumb he has to be. Show me where the ToE teaches that apart from the Crashfrog book of lies. You as Evolutionists have some splainin to do and hey,I am all ears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Which order did the systems evolve and how would they survive the development process when they have to be complete to survive? Why do you think you need bones to have nerves? What exactly is the "issue" here that we're sweeping under the rug? The fact is that we can survey the animal (and plant and microbe) kingdom and see primitive versions of all of those systems all over the place. A fully-functional human being does not represent the minimal level of complexity and interconnectedness necessary for life - not even close! There are innumerable ways our systems could be simpler, less complex, less full-featured - and that's how they evolved, in a long, winding path through all those simpler states.
Crashfrog tried to say in the recent past that the Brain, eyes, flesh and the skull all evolved at the same time which shows how dumb he has to be. Why is it "dumb"? Try to argue the position, not the person. Granted, I'm an incredible idiot. Could you be more specific about how I'm wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: Why do you think you need bones to have nerves? Pay attention Crashfrog. You have to have nerves to the muscles thatmove the bones. Crashfrog writes: There are innumerable ways our systems could be simpler, less complex, less full-featured I am waiting with baited breath for you to spell out such a system
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You have to have nerves to the muscles that move the bones. Agreed, but that's not what I asked. Surely someone so smart is a much better reader than that? I asked why you think you need to have bones in order to have nerves. Do you think that organisms with no bones - earthworms, let's say - have no nerves at all?
I am waiting with baited breath for you to spell out such a system I did, in three posts in this thread alone, to which I'm awaiting your reply. Anyway, why are you asking me to do it if you're so sure I'm such a risible moron? Could it be that there's something you want to learn from me, after all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
ICdesign writes:
Perhaps a bit overstated, but it's roughly correct.
The FACT is my friend, every system within our bodies is dependent on each other for survival. This is the fundamental underlying common sense test I mentioned earlier that ToE fails 100%! ICdesign writes:
It's not an issue, and I don't know of anybody who is sweeping it under the carpet.I know this isn't a revelation for most of you but its time to quit sweeping this issue under the carpet. The thing is, this is actually evidence that favors evolution, not design. Yes, I do realize that you will have great difficulty understanding this point. The thing is, when something is designed and has a large number of complexly related components that are mutually dependent on one another, the resulting designed product is quite fragile. Evolved things, by contrast, are fairly robust - they have to be or they would not survive to reproduce.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024