|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving the Musculoskeletal System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ICdesign writes: I think that was an excellent way to put it because that's exactly what this whole notion of natural selection being able to "edit" is, a fraud. In a nutshell editing is an act of intelligence with intentionality. This is in direct violation of the very premise of ToE. 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.
What is one provable truth all of these systems have in common? The Neurological SystemVision Hearing etc... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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. 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, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICD writes:
(This is not meant to be a facetious question...) 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.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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
ICdesign writes: 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. 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.
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. 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.
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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again ICdesign,
Just one little point from your last response.
ICdesign writes:
Why are they impossible? Could you explain that to me?
I know what its claims are and that it is impossible for those claims to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
Yes. That is exactly what it means.
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?
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. 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.
Fate or destiny are not of the physical world and are a whole other discussion entirely.
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.
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 selectionhas to have intentionality to determine if a mutation is beneficial or not and choose the best for survival. IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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. How did you determine that there was a "high level of intelligence"? What is the test for this?
The odds of such a construction arising without the assistance of an intelligent mind are astronomical. Can we see these calculations please?
The true test needed is one that can prove such a design can develop without the assistance of intelligence. Can you please describe the test that you used to determine that an intelligence was involved?
Oh please. It is only accepted by those who don't want to be accountable to God. Millions of christian biologists across the globe would disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
...and the endless argument goes on and on and on and on and on.........
You could put an end to it by supplying the tests you used to determine that an intelligence was involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ICdesign writes: 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... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ICdesign writes: I fully understood Crash was giving an analogy but my point is stillthe same. Natural selection has to have intentionality to determine if a mutation is beneficial or not and choose the best for survival. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: Percy writes:
Oh please. It is only accepted by those who don't want to be accountable to God. 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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024