Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

When Crash said "edit," that was an analogy. The "editing" happens when an organism fails to produce any descendants or produces fewer descendants than others of its species. The environment imposes competitive pressures upon organisms, and those sufficiently capable produce offspring, or produce more offspring than others. By this means the proportion of favorable alleles and genes increases in a population over time. As environments change the combinations of genes and alleles that is favorable will also change. This is one of the common definitions of evolution, changing allele frequencies in a population over time. If you think you have a provable truth then you're not doing science, but if you think what these things have in common represents helpful evidence about the nature of the real world then please describe what it is.A side comment: Being child-like may have its advantages in some contexts, but until you understand how evolution actually works your criticisms, like this one, will considerably miss the mark. Your understanding is so confoundedly confused that your criticisms don't even make sense. It would be as I were terribly confused about the Biblical story and said, "Jesus couldn't be risen because the groundhog saw his shadow." Such criticisms made as persistently as you're being here, but on a Christian board, would draw the same kind of responses you're getting here.Evolution is being explained to you over and over again, but you're not paying much attention. Your marine instincts may be getting in the way of discussion. Ignore any perceived attack, address the content. Click on the Percy Posts Only link and beginning with Message 3 you'll see that I've explained key aspects of evolution relevant to this thread over and over again. Forget about how you're being treated and talk about those messages instead.--Percy

I withdraw the idea of that test as being provable. The end result of all those systems produces a purpose. I had forgotten the term 'function' replaces the idea of purpose in the evolutionary world view. To me its obvious that when you have several functions working together such as in the vision system, and the end result is being able to see, it is an intentional purpose. I guess I can never prove that so what is the point.You think I don't understand the claims of the ToE. I do.
I know what its claims are and that it is impossible for those claims to be true.Right now I just feel like going away. Nobody respects anything I have to offer anyway. Nothing changes on this forum. Nothing "we" ever say will ever change your minds and nothing "you" ever say will change our minds. That's just the way it is. The endless argument......ho hum

That is basically what occurs in any debate forum. Those on either side are not going to change the other's views. The only people who may be swayed are the "fence sitters," those who not sure of either side. One can relate this to a political debate,it sways very few people to vote for a candidate but may say some who have not made up their minds, the same with the debate here.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

(This is not meant to be a facetious question...)
If I saw a man pointing a gun at woman; saw a flash from the gun muzzle; heard a loud bang and then saw the woman fall over clutching her chest - I would say it was obvious that he had shot her.Did he shoot her?

Here's what just happened. You misunderstood Crashfrog's use of the word "edited" in describing natural selection. I explained that it was an analogy, and then I explained what really happens in detail. You didn't address any of that explanation in your response, you just said you know the ToE's claims are impossible without giving any reasons. This discussion is ready to move forward as soon as you articulate your reasons. The rocks under Manhattan are there for the purpose of supporting tall skyscrapers. Does that mean they were designed and placed there with intentional purpose? How would you design a test to determine this?The eyes in our heads are there for the purpose of allowing us to see. Does that mean they were designed and placed there with intentional purpose? How would you design a test to determine this?In other words, where does this human tendency to assign purpose and intent to things stop. "Intent" is a human construct that we overlay onto reality. It is incredibly common for people to ascribe most things that happen to some purposeful intent, often God or fate or destiny. But if you want to put purpose and intent on a scientific footing, how are you going to do that?The reason we teach evolution in science class is because it has been put on so solid a scientific footing that it has become almost universally accepted within the relevant scientific community. The reason we don't teach purpose and intent in science class is because it has almost no scientific foundation whatsoever, except as objects of study as human qualities in the field of psychology. You're not going to change anyone's mind by declaring you know the answers while giving no reasons, then taking a general shot at everyone about how unfair they are.--Percy

Hello again ICdesign,Just one little point from your last response. Why are they impossible? Could you explain that to me?

Yes. That is exactly what it means. This is such an astonishing system with such a high level of intelligence throughout the entire design you have to infer an intelligent mind constructed it for the purpose of allowing sight.
The odds of such a construction arising without the assistance of an intelligent mind are astronomical. The true test needed is one that can prove such a design can develop without the assistance of intelligence.
I'm not sure why such a no-brainer even needs a test to begin with. This whole issue is a head-scratcher to me. So simple a child should be able to understand it. Fate or destiny are not of the physical world and are a whole other discussion entirely. Oh please. It is only accepted by those who don't want to be accountable to God.I fully understood Crash was giving an analogy but my point is still the same. Natural selection
has to have intentionality to determine if a mutation is beneficial or not and choose the best for survival.IC

How did you determine that there was a "high level of intelligence"? What is the test for this? Can we see these calculations please? Can you please describe the test that you used to determine that an intelligence was involved? Millions of christian biologists across the globe would disagree.

Your way too deep for me Taq...NOT...and the endless argument goes on and on and on and on and on............you boys have at it, I have a toilet to clean...

You could put an end to it by supplying the tests you used to determine that an intelligence was involved.

I don't understand your attitude. You complain about the nature of the debate, you resume the discussion, Taq asks precisely the right questions, and you blow him off.If you want an improved tenor for the debate then it will take effort from both sides.I'm going to compose a response now to your Message 382, the same one Taq responded to.--Percy

And your point still reveals a deep misunderstanding of how evolution works. No intent is required for mutations to be either deleterious or beneficial, and here's a simple example illustrating why.A bacteria in a population of the same species of bacteria experiences a random mutation after cell division. This particular mutation is beneficial in that it enables the bacteria to take better advantage of the available nutrient resources, and instead of dividing once every hour like its brethren it divides once every 30 minutes. Within a few days the descendants of this bacteria dominate the population.Please describe any intent you see in this process.--Percy

You keep repeating that even after it gets refuted time after time.I am a Christian accountable to God.The Clergy Letter is currently signed by 13,000 Clergy that believe themselves accountable to God.You need to stop repeating that it is somehow related to religion or God.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Or to use a non-biological analogy, there need be no intent on the part of the ping pong balls in order for someone to win the lottery. It's not as if the ping pong balls got together and decided who was going to win.However, IDers project intent where doesn't exist. They have decided that the odds of John Smith were so astronomical that there had to be intent within the system in order for John Smith to win. What they ignore is all of the losers.

The grip of a screwdriver can be used to crack open nuts by banging them really hard. It has the function, in other words, of opening nuts.Is the intentional purpose of screwdrivers to open nuts? No? If things can have unintentional function, how do we tell the difference between intentional and unintentional functions?Be specific.