Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 121 of 527 (578134)
08-31-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 9:33 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
Well, here's one reason for some incredulity; you say random mutations could have caused lubricant forming between joints, or proto-cartilage could have randomly appeared that would have caused some reproductive advantage. But we never see examples of these things happening occasionally in modern species.
Evolution proceeds in tiny, tiny steps. Most mutations cause no change or very little change, too tiny a change to be noticeable in creatures like mammals and birds and reptiles. In order to see the tiny effects of mutations you have to study tiny creatures like bacteria, so tiny that tiny effects are apparent.
It is inevitable that this process of continuous tiny change must happen. For example, your average human has about 100 random mutations. There's nothing that can stop this. Almost every sexual offspring is an imperfect combination of its parents genes.
We don't see sporadic examples of people born with excess cartilages in random areas, or lubricant forming between some peoples finger joints, or extra ligaments appearing in some individuals which causes some difference of their physical capabilities. So if we can never see this happening occasionally why do we just have to take your word that it did?
Inevitably some of these mutations must occur in genes that affect joints, and some of them will cause tiny, tiny changes in the lubricant or the cartilage or the ligaments. But these tiny, tiny changes are like minuscule needles in immense haystacks. There's no way to know which individuals receive mutations that affect joint lubrication by some tiny, tiny percentage without conducting expensive testing on very large populations. The mutations that get studied are those whose effect is so significant that it is obvious who the affected individuals are, such as with Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis.
You are making baseless claims that you can't verify, and asking others to just accept it.
Most people posting replies to you can back up what they say, but you need to be specific about what things you'd like additional support for. We're telling you many things that we think are true, and if you can tell us which of those things you doubt then we can provide the supporting evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 9:33 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 122 of 527 (578191)
09-01-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
08-30-2010 7:39 PM


Crashfrog writes:
Earthworms have blood but no bones. How do you explain this discrepancy with your "FACTS"?
Or is this just about how I know so much more than you that I can't see "the truth" that no organism without bones could ever possibly survive or exist?
Show me where I said no organism could ever live without bones.
I said YOU can't live without bones.
If you want to change goal posts and
talk about worms then start a new thread.
Respectfully,
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2010 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2010 4:24 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2010 11:51 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 123 of 527 (578195)
09-01-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
08-31-2010 8:05 AM


Percy writes:
precisely explain what makes it so wildly impossible.
How did I not do that in message #71? If you think
others gave suitable responses then let the record
show I strongly disagree!!!
You and your buddies are the ones making claims that rm/ns is producing miraculous designing feats and as Bolder-dash rightly stated, the burden of proof is on you to prove the impossible really happened, not on us to prove that it didn't. I haven't been dumbly asking the same questions over and over as you have made it sound. I have presented thought provoking questions worthy of sound answers.
Its not my fault that I think the answers thus far fall flat.
Respectfully,
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 09-01-2010 4:14 AM ICdesign has replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 09-01-2010 9:11 AM ICdesign has replied
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 09-01-2010 11:54 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 124 of 527 (578197)
09-01-2010 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by scarab
08-31-2010 6:29 PM


Hi scarab, and welcome to the EvC.
scarab writes:
That's an easy one: it did it gradually, starting from simple beginnings and progressing from there. The Human skeleton is an example of the current mammalian state of the art.
State of the art indeed. Saying they gradually progressed from simple beginnings into a state of the art mammalian skeleton does nothing to explain how they ended up in such perfect formation from the skull to the toe. With your obviously very intelligent mind, you would be hard pressed to sit down and engineer a more well thought out design for a foundational structure than our current skeletal system.
From there it only gets tougher to account for as we see over 650 muscles that puppeteer the structure connected to all the nerves through the body in an elaborate maze of wiring connecting to the amazing brain.
If you check out message #71 the problems surmount as I point out how the problems for the evolutionary model can hardly be scoffed at as system after system has to be up and running to make it all happen.
You present a lot of "could have's" and "possible's" but I would love to see some tangible evidence that rm/ns is capable of pulling off such miraculous feats of design.
I here a lot of inferences made as people peer into a microscope. I see a lot of people pointing to mutations gone bad. I hear a lot of high fulootin biological mubo-jumbo but I don't see any real and tangible evidence being offer up that rm/ns is capable of producing complex new structures.
Respectfully,
ICDESIGN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by scarab, posted 08-31-2010 6:29 PM scarab has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Huntard, posted 09-01-2010 4:29 AM ICdesign has replied
 Message 128 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 09-01-2010 7:25 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 129 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2010 8:54 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 10:05 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 09-01-2010 11:51 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 125 of 527 (578198)
09-01-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:00 AM


ICDESIGN writes:
How did I not do that in message #71? If you think
others gave suitable responses then let the record
show I strongly disagree!!!
Yes, but why? Because you think it's not sufficient?
You and your buddies are the ones making claims that rm/ns is producing miraculous designing feats and as Bolder-dash rightly stated, the burden of proof is on you to prove the impossible really happened, not on us to prove that it didn't.
There's nothing miraculous about it.
I haven't been dumbly asking the same questions over and over as you have made it sound. I have presented thought provoking questions worthy of sound answers.
Its not my fault that I think the answers thus far fall flat.
No, but it is your fault for not explaining why they fall flat.
Remember, "I don't think it can explain it", is not a valid reason. You have to highlight where the explanations are impossible, and why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:00 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 6:27 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 126 of 527 (578202)
09-01-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 3:53 AM


I said YOU can't live without bones.
If you want to change goal posts and
talk about worms then start a new thread.
Of course we can't live without bones; how's that relevant to evolution? Evolution does not posit a bone-free human. Bones evolved in fish. The first tetrapods to crawl on land already had bones, the first mammals had bones. Bones and muscle were already well developed by the time you reached humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 3:53 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 127 of 527 (578203)
09-01-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:06 AM


ICDESIGN writes:
State of the art indeed. Saying they gradually progressed from simple beginnings into a state of the art mammalian skeleton does nothing to explain how they ended up in such perfect formation from the skull to the toe. With your obviously very intelligent mind, you would be hard pressed to sit down and engineer a more well thought out design for a foundational structure than our current skeletal system.
First, who says it is perfect? I think I'm beginning to see the problem here. You see man as an end product, don't you? As the pinacle of the natural (created) world. Is that correct?
You see, we don't see it like that. To us, life is continually changing, and the only measure of how "good" something is, is in its ability to survive. Viewed like that Homo Sapiens is indeed a very succesful "design", if you will. But then again, there are designs that survived much longer than we have up until now. So there really is nothing special about us. And being "perfect" is all relative.
You present a lot of "could have's" and "possible's" but I would love to see some tangible evidence that rm/ns is capable of pulling off such miraculous feats of design.
Check out the design programs we use to design planes, cars, highly complex antenae, and so on. They all use evolutionary algorithms. And they all come up with "miraculous designs".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:06 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 6:34 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 128 of 527 (578234)
09-01-2010 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:06 AM


I here a lot of inferences made as people peer into a microscope. I see a lot of people pointing to mutations gone bad. I hear a lot of high fulootin biological mubo-jumbo but I don't see any real and tangible evidence being offer up that rm/ns is capable of producing complex new structures.
rm/ns does not produce complex new structures. It produces tiny, gradual changes to existing structures, that over millions of years may accumulate to form complex structures.
What is the obstacle that you see in that process? Where is the barrier that makes you think organisms can only evolve so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:06 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 129 of 527 (578258)
09-01-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:06 AM


Perfection is relative
State of the art indeed. Saying they gradually progressed from simple beginnings into a state of the art mammalian skeleton does nothing to explain how they ended up in such perfect formation from the skull to the toe.
In what sense is it a perfect formation? What does it to do perfectly? Are we perfectly design for sitting at computers, working away? Or playing football? Does our perfection lie in the aesthetics of the buttocks? Or the ability to climb ladders? There are single celled organisms out there that can only in boiling water, which would kill us, are they more perfect or less?
Perfection cannot be defined without context.
And if I'm perfect, what does that mean for other people who's muscles and skeletons are different from mine? I'm 6' 3", are shorter people therefore slightly defective in the inferior organisation of the mechanical operation of their bodies. What about muscles? I'm not that strong a guy, are all those weightlifters less perfect with all those extra muscles? Is my eight stone girlfriend less perfect since she can't lift as much as me?
You see, the human design can't be perfect because there's too much variation within it. We are all different from one another, and we all change during our lifetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:06 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 130 of 527 (578265)
09-01-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:00 AM


Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
ICDESIGN writes:
How did I not do that in message #71?
Just a quick note. Did you know that when referencing an old message in the same thread that you can say [msg=71]? When you do that then you get a link to Message 71. If you put a minus sign in front of the number then it leaves out the message's subtitle, if it had one.
So anyway, I've taken another look at Message 71 and I can't see where you precisely explained what makes random mutation and natural selection wildly impossible as the processes largely responsible for "the over 1200 components" of the musculoskeletal system.
Evolution doesn't produce sudden new structures. Evolution is a slow process of gradually accumulating change. Whatever mutations get selected to be passed on to the next generation must be due to their conferring a greater survival advantage than mutations that were not selected. What is it about mutations causing the area between a couple of adjacent bones to take on gradually more favorable characteristics through generations of natural selection that seems impossible to you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:00 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 6:20 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 527 (578278)
09-01-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:06 AM


I still would like an answer to the question I've been asking you throughout this thread.
What happens to a critter that is born with incomplete systems that are essential systems?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:06 AM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 11:40 AM jar has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 132 of 527 (578301)
09-01-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
09-01-2010 10:05 AM


I give up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 10:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 11:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 133 of 527 (578303)
09-01-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 11:40 AM


Well, think about it and come back when you think you have it figured out.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 11:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 527 (578306)
09-01-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 3:53 AM


Show me where I said no organism could ever live without bones.
Well, as I answered you before, that was is Message 71 when you said:
quote:
Besides the over 1200 components briefly mentioned previously, we also need to acknowledge all the other systems that directly support the Musculoskeletal system and in fact could not exist without the following;
The Neurological System; The Respiratory System and The Circulatory System. And lets not overlook that little thing called the Brain.
The FACT is my friend, every system within our bodies is dependent on each other for survival.
Yet, there are an abundance of organisms that survive very well despite a total lack of skeletal structure.
If you want to change goal posts and
talk about worms then start a new thread.
"Change goal posts"? The subject of this thread is the musculoskeletal system, which did not evolve de novo in every organism in which it appears. The human musculoskeletal system was inherited by descent with modification from the evolutionary ancestors of human beings, which themselves inherited the system from their ancestors and modified it, and so on.
If you want to talk about the evolution of the musculoskeletal system itself you're necessarily going to be talking about organisms much, much older, and simpler, than Homo sapiens, or any mammal for that matter. That's going to necessitate looking at organisms that have primitive musculoskeletal systems, or lack it altogether.
Respectfully,
LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 3:53 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 135 of 527 (578307)
09-01-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 4:06 AM


Saying they gradually progressed from simple beginnings into a state of the art mammalian skeleton does nothing to explain how they ended up in such perfect formation from the skull to the toe.
Until you demonstrate that it is perfect then there is nothing to explain. You might as well be asking us for an explanation for flying reindeer.
With your obviously very intelligent mind, you would be hard pressed to sit down and engineer a more well thought out design for a foundational structure than our current skeletal system.
First thing we do is throw out the coccyx. That would really improve the design right there. So I have just fulfilled your requirements. I guess it isn't designed afterall.
From there it only gets tougher to account for as we see over 650 muscles that puppeteer the structure connected to all the nerves through the body in an elaborate maze of wiring connecting to the amazing brain.
Get thee to a comparative vertebrate anatomy class at your local university. It will do you a lot of good. What you will find is that banded muscles are derived from unbanded muscles in more primitive vertebrates such as fish.
You present a lot of "could have's" and "possible's" but I would love to see some tangible evidence that rm/ns is capable of pulling off such miraculous feats of design.
You might as well ask that a new continent jump out of the ocean and develop a river that exactly matches the route of the Mississippi in order to accept the idea that the channel of the Mississippi was carved by erosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 4:06 AM 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