Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,792 Year: 4,049/9,624 Month: 920/974 Week: 247/286 Day: 8/46 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Percy
Member
Posts: 22493
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 482 of 527 (599897)
01-11-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 12:28 PM


ICdesign writes:
Percy writes:
The approach used
Think about that phrase for a second Percy. The entire project to gain the design of the antenna was lead by a predetermined goal. To intentionally use all the knowledge and tools at their disposal to "create" a better antenna. How can you possibly call this simulating evolution?
The antennae design program used a simulated model of evolution as its design mechanism. This means they began with an initial population of antennae designs. The antennae designs were assessed for performance, and then the best antennae designs were selected (the analog of natural selection) for random pairing for "mating" by combining their design parameters (the analog of DNA) and randomly modifying some of those parameters in minute ways (the analog of random mutations) to produce "offspring" antennae. The process then repeats with the new generation of antennae designs being assessed for performance and mating pairs chosen, and so forth for some number of generations.
Using a simulation of evolution in this way produced a better performing antennae than humans could achieve, and it illustrates the power of the evolutionary approach.
Evolution is based on a theory that has never been observed and in fact goes against known laws of physics.
Evolution has been observed in both nature and the lab, and it violates no known laws of physics.
The issue is whether or not the heart has an objective purpose. All it does is pump blood so you can live. If it did not exist neither would you.
If the watering hole on the savanna didn't exist then the animals using the watering hole wouldn't exist, either. So by your criteria the watering hole must have an objective purpose.
In my opinion this is you just hiding behind more smoke and mirrors. Has nothing to do with being a Marine or having a fighting spirit, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.
You're doing a great job of calling 'em as you see 'em. Actually discussing the arguments and evidence put before you, not so well.
There are only two choices. It just happened to show up in the exact place performing the exact function mandatory for life or someone put it there on purpose.
But there *are* more than two choices. Science does not believe the heart "just happened to show up" or that "someone put it there on purpose." Science believes the heart evolved in the same way way that all other structures evolved, one little step at a time through descent with modification filtered by natural selection.
I think its time to pick up my marbles and go home.
I think it's time for you to do more discussing and less posturing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22493
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 507 of 527 (600052)
01-12-2011 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


ICdesign writes:
Oh, you mean those antennae that were intelligently designed? You mean those ID antennae that were then intelligently written into the intelligently designed computer program on the intelligently designed computer? You mean those antennas? Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, very evolutionary.
Remember, evolution is not about how life began. Evolution is about how one species evolves into another, and at a more detailed level is about how populations change over time. Therefore, doing design using a simulated model of evolution has to have a population of somethings evolving over time.
This is what all design programs do that use genetic algorithms (models of the evolutionary process). They begin with a population of somethings, usually the best that humans can achieve. They then assess their goodness according to some criteria (analog of natural selection), and next choose the best to "mate" by combining parameters while making minor random modifications to them (analog of descent with modification). They then repeat this process through many generations, and the result is a better something than humans could achieve.
Genetic algorithms make improvements one little step at a time, just like evolution. They choose the best from each generation to contribute to the next, just like evolution. And they make minor random changes in each generation, just like evolution. Genetic algorithms are an illustration of the ability of evolution to produce innovations.
You keep making the mistake of thinking evolution is directed when it is not. There is no goal in evolution. Natural processes have no way of knowing which random mutations will work out and which won't, but natural selection working through the pressures imposed by the environment makes these decisions. Environments change, and what was useful in one environment (e.g., thick fur in cold climes) could be a severe disadvantage in others (thick fur in hot climes).
Structures can even change function. To create an analogy to nature using our antennae example, perhaps prior to becoming an antennae species it was an earring tree species, but then the "environment" changed and the incipient antennae capability of the earring tree provided an advantage, and over the generations its performance as an antennae was fine-tuned and the earring tree function lost or much diminished.
How do you assess performance without using intelligence again?
Assessing performance of antennae requires intelligence, and in the genetic algorithm the assessment and choosing of the best is the analog of natural selection.
Show me where life was created from nothing...
This thread isn't about the origin of life.
...and then show me where complex systems have developed by themselves.
If you mean that we should literally show you evolution that took millions of years then of course we can't do that. We can't show you an electron, either. What we can do is what we have done, which is explain how the evolutionary process produces innovation and complexity through tiny changes whose effects are assessed with the best changes making it to the next generation.
If this had been observed evolution would not be called a theory.
Evolution has been observed. Breeders observed evolution thousands of years before Darwin, with "breeder selection" replacing natural selection. Every reproductive event is another example of evolution, since the mating parties obviously survived to reproduce (natural selection), and the offspring include mutations that make it in tiny ways unlike either parent (descent with modification).
Percy writes:
If the watering hole on the savanna didn't exist then the animals using the watering hole wouldn't exist, either
And? ......What about the hole with water that is never used by an animal?
I don't know, you tell me, since things being created with "objective purpose" is your idea, not mine. What I said was that since you claimed that a heart has "objective purpose" because if it didn't exist then the person wouldn't exist, therefore a watering hole has "objective purpose" because if it didn't exist then the animals using it wouldn't exist either, the point being that you were wrong to say the watering hole only had "subjective purpose", and further that this was because you hadn't really thought through your criteria for determining "objective purpose" and were just making things up as you went along.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22493
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 511 of 527 (600132)
01-12-2011 5:41 PM


The Beginnings of Bone
Found this over at NeuroDojo: The beginnings of bone, here's a very relevant excerpt pertaining to why what ICdesign is doing is so much easier than what we are doing:
Zen Vaulkes writes:
I could go on, but I have other things to do. I just couldn’t quite bring myself to be as taciturn as the Times reporter, who correctly but tersely wrote:
As it happens the evolutionists do have answers but in a fossil record spanning many more billions of years than a literal interpretation of Genesis allows.
Given that the reporter probably had a deadline, I can understand why he didn’t take the time to do a more detailed refutation. It took me a good chunk of a day to read a few technical papers and try to bang out this quick summary about bone evolution, which is why these rhetorical questions are so effective. Being incredulous is easier than research.
I think we could dig out some good information about the current state of knowledge about the origin and evolution of bones, but it would take some effort. Someone in the last day or so posted a few pictures of creatures with more primitive bones than mammals, but it would probably be helpful if we could find examples of extant creatures with just a simple cartilaginous hard part or two. There's the single-celled diatoms (a type of algae) whose cell walls are made of silica.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by jar, posted 01-12-2011 5:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22493
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 513 of 527 (600135)
01-12-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by jar
01-12-2011 5:48 PM


Re: The Beginnings of Bone
Found a couple articles at Wikipedia about the earliest creatures with skeletons of some sort. Here's a brief excerpt about the Namacalathus, an Ediacaran fossil:
Wikipedia writes:



A U—Pb zircon age from the fossiliferous rock in Namibia and Oman provides an age for the Namacalathus zone in the range from 549 to 542 Ma, which corresponds to the Late Ediacaran. These organism and Cloudina are the oldest known evidence in the fossil record of the emergence of calcified skeletal formation in metazoans, a prominent feature in animals appearing later in the Early Cambrian.
...
The fossil is lightly calcified, preserved as calcite crystals; its original morphology is unknown.
This excerpt is from the Wikipedia article on Cloudinid:
Wikipedia writes:



They formed millimetre-scale conical fossils consisting of calcareous cones nested within one another; the appearance of the organism itself remains unknown.
...
Cloudinids are important in the history of animal evolution for two reasons. They are among the earliest and most abundant of the small shelly fossils with mineralized skeletons, and therefore feature in the debate about why such skeletons first appeared in the Late Ediacaran.
So the earliest examples of skeletons in the fossil record were very, very simple, but we know very little about these organisms.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Increase image margins.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by jar, posted 01-12-2011 5:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by jar, posted 01-12-2011 7:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 515 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024