Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
31 online now:
Heathen, kjsimons, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,958 Year: 18,994/19,786 Month: 1,414/1,705 Week: 220/446 Day: 18/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 481 of 527 (599884)
01-11-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Percy
01-10-2011 3:34 PM


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?

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.

What does weather have to do with the theory of evolution?
A weather simulation is based on known laws of physics.
Evolution is based on a theory that has never been observed and in fact goes against known laws of physics.

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?"

Just because something has been created by God doesn't necessarily mean it has an objective intentional purpose. Rain has an objective intentional purpose but that doesn't mean every puddle from the rain has an objective intentional 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.

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. How much more intentional can anything be?
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.
If you have the enormous faith to believe in the miracle that it just happened along, you do so at your own intellectual suicide. When you ad all the systems mandatory for life besides the circulatory system....well, its way beyond having your head in the sand. I'm thinking your head would have to be somewhere else entirely to believe such a fantasy.

The problem you're having is that you didn't arrive at your position through reasoning,....You believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you've done any analysis of real world evidence.

My views and conclusions make compete rational sense.
You live in a fantasy world of illusion.

I think its time to pick up my marbles and go home. This is like playing against a player using square marbles.
Later,
IC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Percy, posted 01-10-2011 3:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 01-11-2011 1:26 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 483 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 1:42 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 484 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:23 PM ICdesign has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


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 responded

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

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6690
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 483 of 527 (599898)
01-11-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 12:28 PM


What laws?
and in fact goes against known laws of physics.

I realize this is off topic, but when you introduce crap like this it is necessary to call you out on it.

Please tell me what laws of physics the TOE goes against. It is very curious how you fundie creos are so against science that is contrary to your beliefs but are willing to accept ever other part of science.

My views and conclusions make compete rational sense.
You live in a fantasy world of illusion.

You have yet to introduce a rational argument or use reason. All you have presented is personal incredulity. You are unwilling to or unable to present any argument than "godidit".

I think its time to pick up my marbles and go home. This is like playing against a player using square marbles.

At least we have marbles. Your marble bag is empty. And if you cannot debate honestly, you should go home.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2011 2:29 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 484 of 527 (599902)
01-11-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 12:28 PM


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?

Who designed the antenna?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 485 of 527 (599903)
01-11-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Percy
01-11-2011 1:26 PM


Percy writes:

This means they began with an initial population of antennae designs.


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.

The antennae designs were assessed for performance

How do you assess performance without using intelligence again?

All you have is antenna that were generated by a man-made computer. Nothing more.

and it illustrates the power of the evolutionary approach.

No it does not. It illustrates the ingenuity of intelligent man.

Evolution has been observed in both nature and the lab
Show me where life was created from nothing and then show me where complex systems have developed by themselves. If this had been observed evolution would not be called a theory.
Mutations that develop different shapes and hard spots is not a demonstration of new systems developing functions.

[qs]If the watering hole on the savanna didn't exist then the animals using the watering hole wouldn't exist, either[/.qs]
And? ......What about the hole with water that is never used by an animal?

Science believes the heart evolved in the same way way that all other structures evolved

No, evolutionary scientists believe this. Its is a belief of a bias community. Belief is not science.

one little step at a time through descent with modification filtered by natural selection.

This is a theory not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 01-11-2011 1:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Huntard, posted 01-11-2011 2:43 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 490 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 3:06 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 497 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 3:47 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 507 by Percy, posted 01-12-2011 3:16 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 509 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 10:05 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 486 of 527 (599904)
01-11-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Theodoric
01-11-2011 1:42 PM


Re: What laws?
and in fact goes against known laws of physics.

I realize this is off topic, but when you introduce crap like this it is necessary to call you out on it.
Please tell me what laws of physics the TOE goes against. It is very curious how you fundie creos are so against science that is contrary to your beliefs but are willing to accept ever other part of science.

YHBT

I hear Miak works...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9ONw72pUyY


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 1:42 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 487 of 527 (599906)
01-11-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2011 2:23 PM


Who designed the antenna?

A computer generated the design.
However many times you ask the question, the answer is the same.

Evolution does not have a computer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:58 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 491 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 3:27 PM ICdesign has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 488 of 527 (599908)
01-11-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


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.

ICdesign writes:

Show me where life was created from nothing...


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.

and then show me where complex systems have developed by themselves. If this had been observed evolution would not be called a 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?

Mutations that develop different shapes and hard spots is not a demonstration of new systems developing functions.

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.

No, evolutionary scientists believe this. Its is a belief of a bias community. Belief is not science.

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.

This is a theory not science.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:33 PM Huntard has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 489 of 527 (599910)
01-11-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:32 PM


A computer generated the design.

That tells me what unintelligent process unintelligently produced the design.

It does not tell me who designed the antenna. (It would, to a sane person, imply the correct answer to that question, but I want to see you say it.)

However many times you ask the question, the answer is the same.

However many times I ask the question you fail to answer it.

Who designed the antenna?

Evolution does not have a computer.

Nor does the weather, nor any other natural phenomenon that one simulates on a computer. Instead they have this thing called reality in which I hope one day to induce you to take an interest.

Who designed the antenna?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:32 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 490 of 527 (599912)
01-11-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


Oh, you mean those antennae that were intelligently designed?

No. Unless you can tell us --- who designed the antenna?

How do you assess performance without using intelligence again?

You have the assessment carried out by an unintelligent process. Such as natural selection or a computer program.

As I've answered your question, perhaps you could tell me something.

Who designed the antenna?

All you have is antenna that were generated by a man-made computer. Nothing more.

Who designed the antenna?

No it does not. It illustrates the ingenuity of intelligent man.

Was it an intelligent man who designed the antenna? If so, who was he?

Show me where life was created from nothing ...

Show me where a dog cremated the universe in six ways.

This is a theory not science.

If you do not know what the word "theory" means then I suggest that you stop using it until you've looked it up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 491 of 527 (599915)
01-11-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:32 PM


A computer generated the design.

What did the computer generate the design from?

Evolution does not have a computer.

But it does have life that competes for limited resources which is all that evolution needs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:32 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:36 PM Taq has responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 492 of 527 (599917)
01-11-2011 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Huntard
01-11-2011 2:43 PM


Huntard writes:

We're talking about evolution. You do know evolution is only about the development of life once it exists, right?


Yes, but when you are talking about the development of existence you have to start at the beginning of that existence do you not. That is why I include it.

For example, gravity is considered a theory in science.

No, gravity is not a theory, its a fact. The reasons of how it exists is the part that is a theory.

Micro- Evolution is based on observed science.
Macro-Evolution is nothing more that a theory (an unproven guess)

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.

And this is one of your contradictions that I still haven't figured out. You claim their are no incomplete systems because an organism cannot survive with an incomplete system, correct? Yet there would have to be many incomplete stages between the first step and a complete system, correct? ie; "we don't live long enough to observe an entire new system form."
Where is this system all this time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Huntard, posted 01-11-2011 2:43 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Huntard, posted 01-11-2011 3:57 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 499 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 4:20 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 500 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 4:53 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 493 of 527 (599918)
01-11-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Taq
01-11-2011 3:27 PM


What did the computer generate the design from?

A program designed by intelligent people.

But it does have life that competes for limited resources which is all that evolution needs
.
This designs nothing. This builds nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 3:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 3:44 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3088 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 494 of 527 (599919)
01-11-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2011 3:06 PM


Who designed the antenna?

It was generated by a computer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 3:41 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 495 of 527 (599921)
01-11-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:37 PM


It was generated by a computer

And who designed it?

---

Getting a creationist to speak the truth is like pulling teeth, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:37 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019