Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

Wrong - the design for the antenna was not in the computer programme.The design of the antenna evolved via random changes supplied by the computer programme coupled with selection that was defined by the environment. We're not interested in the antenna but ion the design of the antenna. From where did the design originate????(hint, I wrote the answer above)

OK then. Would the design of the antenna exist if you took intelligent mind out of the equation?

Hi Percy, No that isn't my point exactly. My point is that all computer related products are an extension of an intelligent source. Simulations are an extension of an intelligent mind. Anything done on a computer would not exist if you took the intelligent mind out of the equation. Do you now understand?I'll have to come back to the other points you reposted later.Do you think your heart has an intentional purpose?I much prefer a point or two at a time.
Thanks,
IC

Sure, I understand what you're saying now, and I'm sure eveyone would agree, but what you're saying now is irrelevant to this discussion. You were trying to claim that simulating a natural process like evolution means that that process was created by an intelligence. This is, of course, untrue. That's fine by me as long as you finish one point before beginning another. You have a number of unfinished points right now. Let's not introduce new topics like whether the heart has "intentional purpose" until you've finished the other ones. My suggestion would be to pick up the Mr. Chance/Mr. Selection discussion that we were having.--Percy

I won't speak for Percy and his heart, but mine does NOT have a "intentional purpose." It just grew along with the rest of me. With vertebrates, that's how it works.

No, it isn't irrelevant to this discussion and I did not change the point I have been making the entire time. Think about what you are saying Percy. How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design. That is a double oxymoron. Well you were all ready to talk about it 2 or 3 posts ago when the drinking hole was your example. I'm not into investing all the time and effort it would take to go down that road. The issues of complex systems with intentional purposes cut more to the heart of the matter than Mr. no brain and Mr. no ability to recognize a beneficial mutation if it were staring him in the face.Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

This is just silly. Are you saying that that the ability to simulate the physics of an avalanche on a computer implies that avalanches must be intelligently designed?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Who designed the antenna?

How would you take your intelligence out of the equation, you mean? Well, here's how I would do it - I would base the initial conditions and parameters of the simulation on as few of my decisions as possible, preferably duplicating whatever constraints existed in reality. For instance, if I was simulating the interactions of atoms and needed to specify the atomic weight of hydrogen, I would simply put in the actual weight of hydrogen instead of making any kind of decision on my own about how much virtual hydrogen should weigh.And then I would further remove my own intelligence from the equation by having the simulation run unattended, autonomously, without asking me for any further decisions or input.The purpose of these simulations, indeed of any simulation, is to simulate natural processes without any intelligent intervention whatsoever. Can you identify the precise step where the computer programmers failed at this goal? Maybe you could identify the bugs in their code that resulted in their simulation being, against their intentions, a simulation of intelligent intervention in antenna design?

Are you applying the modifier "void of intelligence" to the process or the simulation?If you were asking how a simulation could be "void of intelligence" then the answer is that it couldn't, because of course the simulation was created by intelligence. Everyone would agree with this. But it's an irrelevant point because we're discussing whether evolution requires intelligence, not simulations.If you were instead asking how you could simulate a process that is "void of intelligence" then the answer has been provided to you a number of times, and it hasn't changed. We use computers to simulate all kinds of natural processes, from nuclear fission to magnetic storms on the sun, and the fact that we can simulate such natural processes on a computer does not transform them into intelligently driven processes with "intentional purpose." I can write a simulation of a marble rolling down an inclined plain, but neither the marble nor the inclined plane nor gravity has any intelligence or "intentional purpose."Asking the question again in the style of, "But Percy, you're looking at this all wrong. How could a simulation of a process not require intelligence?" can only draw the same answer, because the answer you've been provided a number of times now is the correct answer. Instead of expressing incredulity over and over and over again you're going to have to read and understand the answer and then express clearly what it is about that answer that you either don't understand or don't agree with. Fine, let's return to the watering hole example that you ignored (along with most of the rest of a lengthy message) in your reply in Message 455. Although you have been asked to address how you tell when something has "intentional purpose" a number of times, 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 that 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Minor change to improve clarity.

By simulating a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.For example, you can simulate the weather, which is void of intelligence, using the intelligent mind of a computer programmer to create the simulation of the weather on a computer which was intelligently designed.---Who designed the antenna?

Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing. A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes. And the answer is yes. We know in the real world that you cannot achieve building a complex system without the aid of intelligence. You cannot simulate a THEORY that took place without intelligence. Its impossible!
Without a computer the antenna has no place to develop, correct? Just because water gathered in a hole from rain storms doesn't prove anything other than it rained. That is called subjective purpose. It would exist whether animals drank from it or not.
The heart has an objective purpose. It has the obvious sole purpose of pumping blood to the body and that is all it does. That makes it intentional. In order to show it is not intentional you have to show other reasons why it would exist.Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

Writing a simulation based on known laws of biology is a very similar thing.Who designed the antenna? Who designed the antenna? Who designed the antenna?

You're combining two distinct and different things into one. The program implementation was performed by programmers, and that's one thing. The approach used by the programmers to perform the design activity employed a simulated model of evolution, and that's a different thing. Simulating evolution to design an antennae does not mean that evolution requires intelligence. Writing a simulation program requires intelligence, not the process you're simulating. Just as a weather forecasting program might employ a simulated model of the weather to make predictions, an antennae design program might employ a simulated model of evolution to produce designs. But neither the weather nor evolution requires an intelligence. If stalactites and stalagmites that are created by the dripping of mineralized water were actually designed by God (see your Message 464), then isn't a watering hole also designed by God. And doesn't anything designed by God have "objective intentional purpose?"The problem you're having is that you didn't arrive at your position through reasoning, and so you can't explain the reasoning for your position because it doesn't have any. You're reduced to claiming that your position is obvious while making unsupported assertions like "It's impossible" because you've never thought it through, it's just something you believe very strongly. You believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you've done any analysis of real world evidence.--Percy

Those brilliant scientists did not input the design for the antenna. That is the whole point. They simulated the blind and unintelligent process of evolution and what this process produced was the antenna. This is no different than simulating the blind and unintelligent process of gravity to predict the best orbit for a satellite. We know no such thing. No intelligence is needed to produce the complex weather systems seen on Earth. No intelligence is needed to produce antibiotic resistance in bacteria through random changes in proteins. No intelligence is needed during the 9 month development of a human embryo from a single cell to a fully functioning human baby. We observe complex systems spontaneously forming throughout nature all of the time without any input from an intelligence. So are the purposes you are assigning to biological systems. That is the heart's function. Purpose and function are separate things.