Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 3:02 AM
24 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
36Next
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Panda
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 436 of 527 (599559)
01-08-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 7:14 PM


ICdesign writes:

You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent.


Again, you knowingly use words that have multiple definitions.

Build: To develop or give form to according to a plan or process.
"You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent." is a circular tautological statement of no real worth.

Build: To form by combining materials or parts; construct.
"You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent." is an untrue statement.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 7:14 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6263
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 437 of 527 (599560)
01-08-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 7:14 PM


"You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent.'
So you can prove crystals are formed by some conscious effort?

Ever hear of staying on topic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 7:14 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 438 of 527 (599570)
01-08-2011 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 7:14 PM


You cannot build one single thing without conscious intent.

Oh, really?


"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 7:14 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 439 of 527 (599572)
01-08-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 12:48 PM


I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
Remember our old friends the NASA antennae?

Those are examples of two "sophisticated systems" that grew without any intelligent input. Go ahead, ignore or misconstrue these away to your heart's content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 12:48 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:05 AM subbie has responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2960 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 440 of 527 (599579)
01-09-2011 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by subbie
01-08-2011 10:29 PM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
subbie writes:

Those are examples of two "sophisticated systems" that grew without any intelligent input. Go ahead, ignore or misconstrue these away to your heart's content.


Was there a computer involved? Where did the materials come from to construct? Who constructed the systems? Was intelligence involved to determine what the designs were useful for? Would the systems exist if intelligent man did not determine they were useful then construct them? Did the systems construct themselves? Shall I go on?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by subbie, posted 01-08-2011 10:29 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by subbie, posted 01-09-2011 12:06 AM ICdesign has responded
 Message 444 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2011 3:20 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 441 of 527 (599580)
01-09-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 12:05 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
Was there a computer involved? Where did the materials come from to construct? Who constructed the systems? Was intelligence involved to determine what the designs were useful for? Would the systems exist if intelligent man did not determine they were useful then construct them? Did the systems construct themselves? Shall I go on?

No need, you've proven my point.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:05 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:14 AM subbie has responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2960 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 442 of 527 (599582)
01-09-2011 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by subbie
01-09-2011 12:06 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
subbie writes:

No need, you've proven my point.


actually your point was that their was no intelligent imput and you were proven wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by subbie, posted 01-09-2011 12:06 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by subbie, posted 01-09-2011 12:17 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 446 by derwood, posted 01-09-2011 10:18 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 443 of 527 (599584)
01-09-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 12:14 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
actually your point was that their was no intelligent imput and you were proven wrong.

Two possibilities; either you are deliberately missing the point I was actually making or you don't have the wit to understand it. Either way, there's little point in me, or anyone else for that matter, discussing this with you any further. Not that that's a new development or anything, but it's always good to reaffirm certain truths now and again.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:14 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 444 of 527 (599598)
01-09-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 12:05 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
Was there a computer involved? Where did the materials come from to construct? Who constructed the systems? Was intelligence involved to determine what the designs were useful for? Would the systems exist if intelligent man did not determine they were useful then construct them? Did the systems construct themselves? Shall I go on?

No, just tell us who designed the antenna.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:05 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 445 of 527 (599603)
01-09-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 7:14 PM


ICdesign writes:

Again, that is fine if you and yours want to believe such a story. In the real observable world we live in we see no such ability. ToE goes against everything we know to be true in the observable, testable world. Sophisticated systems require conscious intent.

Nothing you've said here is true. Evolution is what we see in the "real observable world we live in." We can observe the evolutionary process in action, but because it is a gradual process where significant change takes a long time we cannot follow the course of evolutionary changes that take millions of years.

However, this isn't a significant problem. Though astrophysicists cannot study a star through the millions of years of its life cycle, they have no difficulty finding stars in the cosmos at all stages of development and can piece these stages together to get a complete picture. And though geologists cannot follow a mountain range eroding away into plains, they can find mountains ranges in various stages of this process, and they can find the eroded remains of past mountain ranges.

In the same way, biologists can find organisms with biological structures at all stages of evolutionary development. They have examples of the eye ranging from light sensitive spots all the way up the the modern eyes of mammals and octopus. They have examples of the musculoskeletal system ranging from one tiny hard part all the way to modern animals. That there's an evolutionary history of relatedness is clear from DNA studies, and this is supported by the fossil record's history of organisms of gradually increasing complexity.

A long walk requires thousands of tiny steps. In a similar manner, the development of complex structures also takes thousands of tiny steps, tiny little mutational steps filtered by natural selection.

Imagine an ancient population of microorganism that for purposes of defense possess a couple of adjacent and identical hard parts. Like all life these microorganisms experience mutations, and every once in a while one of these mutations affects the region between the two hard parts and provides a small increase in lubrication. Adjacent hard parts that experience less friction and don't wear down over time provides a small evolutionary advantage and soon the change dominates the population.

Other mutations cause the two hard parts to evolve shapes independently, and mutations that make one hard part nestle more comfortably into the other hard part would provide an advantage, and these mutations would soon come to dominate the population.

Let''s say the microorganism moves by slowly changing its shape, and mutations could also cause the shape-changing cells to become more common near the hard parts. This would permit more efficient motion and would soon come to dominate the population.

This is an just an illustration of how the gradual process of tiny mutational changes creates increasingly complex structures that eventually, over millions of years, produce such complex structures as the musculoskeletal system. Mutations that confer an advantage, no matter how tiny, spread through populations and provide a foundation for future mutations to provide additional advantages.

In order to support your claim that this is just a story you would have to show that we don't really observe the ability for mutations to confer an advantage, and that complex systems cannot really evolve from less complex predecessors.

By the way, about your computer discussion, if someone writes a computer program that models the weather then you obviously understand that it's just a model of the real world and doesn't mean that weather requires intelligence. So if someone writes a computer program that models evolution why do you conclude that it means that evolution requires intelligence?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 7:14 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 10:23 AM Percy has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 446 of 527 (599613)
01-09-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 12:14 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
Thats an awful lot of individual posts. Better to read through the thread and just make one big post.

Right, percy?

Edited by Admin, : Hide content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:14 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2960 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 447 of 527 (599614)
01-09-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by Percy
01-09-2011 8:39 AM


Percy writes:

They have examples of the eye ranging from light sensitive spots all the way up the the modern eyes of mammals and octopus.


There is an Euglena that has a light sensing spot because that is the feature God chose to give it for its environment. You have an octopus that God designed with its type of eye and many variations in between. So what? You claim it is evidence for evolution we claim it is evidence of a creative Creator.

They have examples of the musculoskeletal system ranging from one tiny hard part all the way to modern animals.

Show me what you are talking about.

Other mutations cause the two hard parts to evolve shapes independently, and mutations that make one hard part nestle more comfortably into the other hard part wld provide an advantage, and these mutations would soon come to dominate the population.

So what Percy? How does a little change in shape and hard or soft spots explain how an entire complex system develops that performs a very specific task? We have system after system after sophisticated system that perform intentional purposes. Hard spots is your evidence as to how this happens? Are you friggin kidding me?

By the way, about your computer discussion, if someone writes a computer program that models the weather then you obviously understand that it's just a model of the real world and doesn't mean that weather requires intelligence. So if someone writes a computer program that models evolution why do you conclude that it means that evolution requires intelligence?

This is exactly what I mean about a waste of precious time. Ho Hum.
Because a computer is intelligence. Coming up with a design on a computer program is not simulating evolution. If man has to help in the outcome of a design, it is not evolution.
What part of this don't you guys understand?

Evolution is what we see in the "real observable world we live in."

No it isn't. In the real world we see it takes conscious intent to design and build systems.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Percy, posted 01-09-2011 8:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2011 11:54 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 449 by Panda, posted 01-09-2011 2:28 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 450 by Percy, posted 01-09-2011 2:44 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 451 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2011 2:55 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 448 of 527 (599622)
01-09-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 10:23 AM


Coming up with a design on a computer program is not simulating evolution.

Is it possible then for computers to simulate anything?

Are computer programs that simulate weather actually simulating "intelligent raining"? Can you explain why you believe that all attempts to simulate anything on computers are doomed to fail? Maybe you could go through the code of some of these simulations and show me where they utterly fail to actually be simulations.

Your notion that computer simulations are utterly impossible is not widely shared, particularly not in the field (some thousand researchers strong) of computer simulations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 10:23 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 449 of 527 (599631)
01-09-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 10:23 AM


ICdesign writes:

In the real world we see it takes conscious intent to design and build systems.


Another circular, tautological statement of little worth based on the unevidenced assertion that life is designed.

You are not making profound statements.
You are not providing evidence of anything.

You are saying the equivalent of "Round shapes are circular!", but that is not evidence that shapes are circular or round.
Your arguments are circular. Learn what that means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 10:23 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 450 of 527 (599632)
01-09-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 10:23 AM


ICdesign writes:

There is an Euglena that has a light sensing spot because that is the feature God chose to give it for its environment. You have an octopus that God designed with its type of eye and many variations in between. So what? You claim it is evidence for evolution we claim it is evidence of a creative Creator.

The difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution has an observed and verified mechanism, descent with modification filtered by natural selection. Creationism has no such observed and verified mechanism.

Percy writes:

They have examples of the musculoskeletal system ranging from one tiny hard part all the way to modern animals.


Show me what you are talking about.

You mean you'd like specific examples of creatures ranging from those with just a single cartilaginous piece all the way up to modern musculoskeletal systems? I'd be glad to do this for you, but could you first let me know to what purpose? Do you doubt that they exist? You didn't seem to have any problem with the fact that a range of light sensing abilities exist in nature, why do you have a problem with the fact that a range of musculoskeletal systems also exist in nature?

One concern I have is that if I did the work to provide these examples that you would just reply the same way you did for the eye, that each different type of musculoskeletal system was just made that way by the Creator? Before I engage in any research at your behest I have to be sure I'm discussing with someone who is sincerely interested in serious consideration rather than dismissal of the evidence.

So what Percy? … Hard spots is your evidence as to how this happens? Are you friggin kidding me?

Such dismissals and expressions of incredulity drive my concern that I may not be discussing with someone who is sincerely interested in serious consideration of the evidence.

How does a little change in shape and hard or soft spots explain how an entire complex system develops that performs a very specific task?

A tiny cartilaginous piece evolves into a complex musculoskeletal system via one little mutation at a time, each providing an advantage in the specific environment.

We have system after system after sophisticated system that perform intentional purposes.

Although you have been asked to address how you tell when something has "intentional purpose," you've never answered. A watering hole on the Savannah has the purpose of providing water for the animals in the area. How do you know whether that purpose was "intentional" or not? Is it just a case of you can't explain "intentional purpose," but you know it when you see it? If so then you need to develop some scientific criteria for establishing when something has "intentional purpose" or not.

Because a computer is intelligence.

Really?

Coming up with a design on a computer program is not simulating evolution. If man has to help in the outcome of a design, it is not evolution.

I write design software for a living. Your computer uses chips designed using software that I helped write. I specialize in the areas of logic simulation and timing analysis. I am intimately familiar with how both computer hardware and software work, and I will not steer you wrong.

Neither computer hardware or software is intelligent. A computer running a software program is merely carrying out a lengthy sequence of steps, and it is no more intelligent than machines from before the computer era that could carry out lengthy sequences of steps, like automated looms, cannery lines and newspaper, magazine and book publishing.

Any sufficiently well understood process can be simulated by writing a computer program. Computer simulators have been written for all sorts of natural processes, among them the weather, plate tectonics, planetary and spacecraft motions, digital and analog circuit behavior, and also evolution.

One interesting application of evolution is in automated design. Simulations of the evolutionary process, commonly known as genetic algorithms, can be used to create designs that no intelligence we're familiar with would ever come up with. One of the first applications of genetic algorithms using gate arrays solved a digital design problem by exploiting analog pathways in the gate array that no one even knew were there. Another design problem was solved by taking advantage of a part of the circuit that, unknown to any human, behaved like a tiny broadcast antennae to send signals to another part of the circuit without using wires. Another example of the application of genetic algorithms is the unusual antennae that someone in this thread provided a picture of.

A genetic algorithm works by performing permutational Monte Carlo trials that first vary system parameters and then assess system behavior for each set of parameters. The parameters of the best performing systems are combined and mixed in a manner similar to sexual reproduction to produce the next generation, and then the process repeats. The genetic algorithm is in effect a simulation of the evolution of a population where each offspring receives a small set of mutations that make it different from its parents, and then natural selection imposed by the environment decides which of these offspring become the parents of the next generation. Only those with the best combinations of mutations (both new and pre-existing from previous generations) become parents.

In the real world we see it takes conscious intent to design and build systems.

You mean in the people world we see people using intelligence to design and build things. People are just one way to design and build. Evolution is another.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 10:23 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 4:21 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
36Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019