Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

It's currently a quarter past six in the evening here. So, good evening to you. Probably, but I think that would be true for almost all persons. As long as nothing "personal" or "fundamental" (to the persons involved) gets discussed, most people will be able to spend plenty of quality time together.Anyway, on to your analogy. I'll first answer your question: Any amount of time I choose? Yes. I'd just need to select a long enough time period. But I don't think this is what you meant.Now, let us make the analogy a bit more like evolution, ok?Let's say Mr. Chance starts with a nut, this nut happens to be in the right place. He selects a part, also right, then he selects another part, but this part is wrong. Now, Mr. Selection (who is also in the room, and who knows how to build Rolls Royces (not saying natural selection "knows" anything, but let's run with this for now)), whacks him on the skull with a funny mallet. And screams: "WRONG!". Mr Chance selects another part, it's wrong again, same thing happens.Now, every time Mr. Chance picks up a wrong part or nut, Mr. Selection whacks him and screams. When he picks up a right part or nut, and places it correctly, Mr. Selection does nothing.This will decrease the time it will take for Mr. Chance to complete the Rolls Royce dramatically. He gets to keep what is right, and every time he does something wrong, he is immediately whacked by Mr. Selection. So really, he can't build it wrong.Do you agree so far? {ABE} Heh, just read Bluejay's reply, he thought of Mr. Selection as well Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

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?

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

Hello again ICdesign,I'm sorry to do this, but I've got some not so nice things to say, don't take them personal. Why? We're talking about evolution. You do know evolution is only about the development of life once it exists, right? I mean, you've claimed a couple of times that you understand the theory. What? Now you show that you don't know about (or undestnad) basic scientific terminology. A theory in science is not the same as a theory in "normal" laymen speak. For example, gravity is considered a theory in science. As is the germ theory of disease. Do you doubt them as well because they are called theory? It is the first step on the way to a new system or function. Sadly, we don't live long enough to observe an entire new system form. Oh please. How many times do we have to point out that there are enough religious people both inside and outside of the scientific community that accept evolution as true. This has nothing to do with bias. In science a theory is the highest an explanation for a natural phenomena can get. Again, gravity is a theory.Please stop saying things we've already pointed out to you are wrong. And stop saying that all evolutionary biologists are biased. They're not, just like all those religious people that accept evolution are not.

For evolution, it matters little how life came about, it only matters that there is life. To be more accurate, it is, like evolution, both a fact and a theory. Notice how the first chapter is "History of gravitational theory". That's because within science, gravity (the explanation for why two masses seem to attract one another) is considered a theory. Macro-evolution is a logical consequence of micro evolution. If you keep changing one small thing at a time (micro-evolution) is it not inevitable that eventually you end up with something completely different (macro-evolution)?For example, if I take the word Supercalifragilistic, and I keep changing one letter at a time, will I not eventually get a completely different word, be it nonsensical or not? (let's leave the selection process out for now) Yes. To be more accurate, if an incomplete system should be the result, the organism would likely not survive, and thus not pass on that incomplete system. No, every step would have to be a "complete system" of its own, not the same "complete system" that you "end up with", but a complete system nonetheless. non-existent. The "intermediate systems" are variations of the system that came before it. i.e. A system with one hard spot, then two, then tree, then four... which eventually becomes one harder long bit, then a bit bigger harder long bit... which then sprouts a second longer hard bit extending from the first longer hard bit, a third one... then a somewhat softer bit where two hard bits are joined (making it flexible), then some tissue to better control the now flexible part. Hey presto, you've got yourself a primitive joint.That's how evolution works, small steps, all of them complete systems, but the beginning system (an organism with one hard spot), nothing like the end (an organism with a primitive joint).Anything not clear in this example?

Of course mate, respect should always be the basis of conversation. Think of it more like 1+1+1+1+1+1...etc. becoming 520 to the 4th power. Yes, that will take a while, but that's what it takes. First of all, that was an example to illustrate how the process works. It wasn't meant as a litteral representation of what happened. Still, I think we will find animals in the fossil record with less hard spots, and a bit later on, with more hard spots. Heck, we probably see some alive today (sharks come to mind, big hard jaw, soft skeleton). Quite, they're all explainable. No, it doesn't. Simply because the creature does not require such a thing. It could be possible it uses some muscles to circulate the "blood" to a part of the body it needs it. Remember, these creatures are still very small, they do not require the big circulatory system we do. I don't know about the "great detail", you have certainly said the same thing in the past, yes. And the answer will be the same now, it all developped at the same time. That is to say, with gradual steps that provided ever better "hearts" ever better "veins" and ever better "blood". Why isn't it possible? Because life at that time did not need the system we see now. Just like in my example, the first creature didn't need the primitive joint to survive, but that single hard spot gave it an advantage. Then one of its descendants had a mutation that created another hard spot, which gave it even more advantage, and so on, until we arrive at our primitive joint. What problems? But it isn't a no-brainer. I really do not see what problems there are, help me understand them. You keep saying there are problems, but everything you bring up isn't a problem really. And like we told you, there are many people who have had the "holy spirit open theior eyes", those that believe in god, that also accept evolution. It really is not a matter of whether or not one is religious or not. Hell, on this thread alone there were 3 or 4 people that believe in god telling you that they also accept evolution. Are they lying about one of those things? Even if god did it, the method he chose is evolution. And may you someday see that there are no problems with evolution, and that believing in god and accepting evolution aren't mutually exclusive.Peace mate.