Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 34 of 527 (577468)
08-28-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICdesign
08-28-2010 8:48 PM


ICdesign writes:
Bones are thickest where the greatest pressures occur, and the most flexible where give is needed.
Some of this is adaptive growth. You too can have stronger bones - just increase your exercise, particularly exercise that modestly stresses some bones, and those bones will grow stronger.
ICdesign writes:
Some are rounded at their ends to rotate within joints;
That might be partly adaptive growth, too. I would guess that a child crippled at birth for some reason not related to the bones, would probably grow bones that were not as rounded.
ICdesign writes:
Some are beveled, like the skull, so that the pieces fit perfectly together.
They fit together because they adaptively grow together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 8:48 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 75 of 527 (577849)
08-30-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICdesign
08-30-2010 6:02 PM


ICdesign writes:
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%!
Perhaps a bit overstated, but it's roughly correct.
ICdesign writes:
I know this isn't a revelation for most of you but its time to quit sweeping this issue under the carpet.
It's not an issue, and I don't know of anybody who is sweeping it 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:02 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:55 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 86 of 527 (577865)
08-30-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICdesign
08-30-2010 6:55 PM


ICdesign writes:
How does this explain the survival of an incomplete system?
Nature does not produce incomplete systems.
You are confused, because you are seeing purpose where there is none.
Let me suggest a thought experiment.
Go find a bright 6 year old kid, and a bunch of lego blocks. Preferably it should be the kind of 6 year old that happens to be interested in lego structures.
Experiment 1:
Give that kid an outline of an elaborate house or mansion, and ask him to build a lego structure that matches the outline. The chances are that he will at least try to build something similar to the outline. But his structure will very likely be quite fragile. Oh, and when it is half built, it will be an incomplete system.
Experiment 2:
Ask the same kid to build something that is both elaborate and robust. You might have to explain "robust" - I'm not sure if that's in a 6 year old vocabulary. The chances are that he will build something that is elaborate and robust. And when he is half done, it will still be elaborate and robust and won't be an incomplete system.
When there is no specific goal to be met, it is far easier to build something where everything fits together quite well. When there is a specific goal, that is far harder because the robustness requirement conflicts with the goal.
Evolution builds robust structures, precisely because there is no goal (other than robustness that supports survival and reproduction). And what evolution builds is never an incomplete system, precisely because there is no specific goal that it would have to meet to make it complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:55 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 150 of 527 (578449)
09-01-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 6:27 PM


Huntard writes:
There's nothing miraculous about it.
ICdesign writes:
Oh really? Then lets see you sit down and design a completely original human body that we could transfer into and live successfully.
And there is the problem.
You are looking at it as a design. And you cannot comprehend how it is possible as a design. And, indeed, it probably isn't possible as a design. Nature's way is very different from a designer's way, and that is what you are failing to take into account.
I commented on this back at Message 86. I'm not sure whether you read that post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 6:27 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 7:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 246 of 527 (581602)
09-16-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 2:29 PM


Re: Round two
Percy writes:
The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed."
ICdesign writes: (quoting E. Koonin)
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation
system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper,
are much greater.
I'm not sure why it is not clear to you, but what Percy is suggesting as a first "organism" is far more primitive than what Koonin is discussing. It is far more primitive than anything that we would actually consider an organism, which is why Percy used scare quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 2:29 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 3:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 291 of 527 (581772)
09-17-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Theodoric
09-17-2010 10:23 AM


Re: All I can say is WOW!!!
Theodoric writes:
You are truly a vile person.
That seems a bit over the top.
Theodoric writes:
You have been found to be committing plagiarism.
Indeed, he has. But maybe ICdesign is an auto mechanic or a plumber or a gardener - that is, maybe he doesn't work in an area where the standards of scholarship apply, so perhaps was not fully aware of what was expected.
I do hope he will do better in future posts.
I occasionally read the Uncommon Descent blog (an ID blog). And I see post after post saying that evolution is obviously wrong, and some particular biological thing just had to have been intelligently designed. As far as I can tell, the people who write that obviously believe what they are saying. They clearly do not understand the theory of evolution, yet it is just as clear that they believe that they do understand it. One might think that when they are is strong disagreement with most biologists, they would begin to question whether their understanding of evolution is correct. But they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 10:23 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 1:27 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 297 of 527 (581791)
09-17-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Theodoric
09-17-2010 1:27 PM


Re: All I can say is WOW!!!
Theodoric writes:
He lies and has no remorse.
From his point of view, it is we evilutionists who lie without remorse, and he sees himself as a messenger for the truth.
Theodoric writes:
If that is not the definition of a vile person I do not know what is.
That still seems over the top to me, and particularly so when I check the forum rules.
If you want to say that he comes from a vile subculture, I could agree with that. He is presumably part of a fundamentalist cult that calls itself "Christian" yet seems to be thoroughly anti-Christian.
Theodoric writes:
Anyone that went through middle school in the US knows about plagiarism.
They may know about it in the abstract, but many don't fully understand it.
Theodoric writes:
This is a fairly academic and scholarly forum.
Indeed, it is. But most creationists don't come from an academic and scholarly background, and they belong to a cultic subgroup where "lying for Jesus" is considered well within the norms of acceptable behavior. We should be attempting to educate them on the proper standards for a scholarly forum, and name calling doesn't help with that. It's better to criticize the behavior, not the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 1:27 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 3:18 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 300 of 527 (581819)
09-17-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Percy
09-17-2010 3:18 PM


Re: All I can say is WOW!!!
Percy writes:
Well, yes, but he has no evidence that we're lying.
Granted, though it is probably a steady drum beat in creationist circles.
nwr writes:
That still seems over the top to me, and particularly so when I check the forum rules.
Percy writes:
Yeah, it struck me the same way, but I found that the sentiments resonated with me. I admit I was pretty disgusted at ICDESIGN's blas attitude about it.
I am no admirer of the way that ICdesign has behaved on this forum.
If creationists want to have crazy beliefs, I guess that's up to them. But when they call themselves "Christian", yet behave in ways that violate our normal understanding of what "Christian" implies, I find that very troubling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 3:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 6:09 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 424 of 527 (599529)
01-08-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 12:01 PM


Re: It's about models.
ICdesign writes:
I can prove all day long that it takes intelligence to build a system.
No, you cannot. In fact you cannot even adequately define "intelligence". There's no clear consensus on what the word means.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 12:01 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 1:53 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 427 of 527 (599535)
01-08-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 1:53 PM


Re: It's about models.
ICdesign writes:
Definition: intelligence (by Webster's)
Noun
1. The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience.
8. The capacity to know or understand;
We can paraphrase that as: "Intelligence" means about the same thing as some other words that we can't define either.
Dictionary "definitions" are notoriously circular.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 1:53 PM ICdesign has 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