Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

Enzymes that repair DNA usually require a cofactor. These cofactors are usually energetic molecules like ATP or NADH that are produced by the active metabolism of the cell (which is derived from the energetic oxygen in the atmosphere which has been derived from energetic photons from the sun). So in keeping with the 2 LoT it does require energy input into the system to decrease entropy and that energy can all be traced back to the massive amounts of energy being deposited on the Earth by the Sun.

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.

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

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.

In what way do we observe a reasoning ability in the OBSERVED process of natural selection?Do we need an outside entity with reasoning ability in order for the slowest elk to be eaten by wolves at a higher rate than the fastest elk? Do we need an outside entity with reasoning in order to find the mutations that confer bacterial resistance, or do we just need mutating bacteria and antibiotics in order for these mutations to reach dominance?

Like Percy states above, there is no such thing as a "not fully formed" organism. Secondly, of course we are focusing on up and running organisms. Dead organisms do not evolve. What tests did you run to determine that natural selection is bogus? Such a statement usually warrants a description of what scientists disagree on. Scientists do agree that natural selection is a real and viable mechanism. So what exactly is this disagreement over? Populations evolve, not individuals. On average, the less fit do have fewer offspring than the more fit. This can be predicted beforehand, before a population is challenged by selective pressure. To use an oft cited example, you can predict beforehand that dark moths will survive at a higher rate than light moths in an environment where the trees are themselves dark. What this tells us is that ratios of alleles will change in response to environmental pressures. How is this not important information? Then your analogy is a poor one since we observe organisms without brains evolving in real time. We see random mutations that confer antibiotic resistance spreading through populations by evolutionary mechanisms minus any brains. You have just admitted that your analogy is irrelevant to biology.

Those brilliant scientists did not input the design for the antenna. That is the whole point. They simulated the blind and unintelligent process of evolution and what this process produced was the antenna. This is no different than simulating the blind and unintelligent process of gravity to predict the best orbit for a satellite. We know no such thing. No intelligence is needed to produce the complex weather systems seen on Earth. No intelligence is needed to produce antibiotic resistance in bacteria through random changes in proteins. No intelligence is needed during the 9 month development of a human embryo from a single cell to a fully functioning human baby. We observe complex systems spontaneously forming throughout nature all of the time without any input from an intelligence. So are the purposes you are assigning to biological systems. That is the heart's function. Purpose and function are separate things.

What did the computer generate the design from? But it does have life that competes for limited resources which is all that evolution needs.

Nowhere in the program did it detail the design of the antenna. Try again. You have been taught about the birds and the bees, haven't you?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We are not talking about the development of existence. We are talking about the production of biodiversity. Gravity is both a theory and a fact, just like evolution. There are the facts of gravity for which the theory of gravity is the explanation. We observe that masses are attracted to one another which is the fact. We use the theory of gravity (of which there are two) to explain why masses are attracted to each other.In the same way, we observe that life changes through time and shares a common ancestor. This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why this occurred, which is through the mechanisms of evolution. Theory is as high as it gets in science. There is no such thing as an incomplete system just as there is no such thing as an incomplete mountain range or an incomplete canyon. Biology, like geology, is in constant flux.

Based on what evidence? What evidence are you looking for? Be specific. However, the pipelines can have function without a heart as others have pointed out. On top of that, an ineffecient cirulatory system can be supported by simple diffusion across the skin as seen in many organisms. A heart would just improve the system, and therefore be selected for.It is examples like this which make your claims irrelevant. You simply know too little about biology to make judgements of what is silly and what is not. A Zoology 101 course would do wonders. So says the guy who proposes magical poofing. Sadly, you have the understanding of a child. You need to grow up.

The earliest chordates had no bones, such as Haikouella:Haikouella - WikipediaConnective tissue is all that is needed. No bones.In modern vertebrates like us we start with the same non-calciferous notochord as an embryo that later develops into the bony vertebral column.