Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 478 of 527 (599754)
01-10-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICdesign
01-10-2011 11:48 AM


Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing.
Writing a simulation based on known laws of biology is a very similar thing.
Who designed the antenna?
A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes.
Who designed the antenna?
And the answer is yes. We know in the real world that you cannot achieve building a complex system without the aid of intelligence. You cannot simulate a THEORY that took place without intelligence. Its impossible!
Without a computer the antenna has no place to develop, correct?
Who designed the antenna?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICdesign, posted 01-10-2011 11:48 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 499 of 527 (599933)
01-11-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:33 PM


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 sentence was too meaningless to attain the dignity of being wrong.
No, gravity is not a theory, its a fact. The reasons of how it exists is the part that is a theory.
Wrong. Did it never occur to you to find out what the theory of gravity is before you started pontificating on it in public?
Micro- Evolution is based on observed science.
Macro-Evolution is nothing more that a theory (an unproven guess)
You remember how I suggested that you should find out what the word theory means before using it again?
Well, this is why. It makes you look like an ignorant buffoon. Of course, it is possible that the is the effect you're aiming for.
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?
Incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:33 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 520 of 527 (600324)
01-13-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by arachnophilia
01-12-2011 2:23 AM


Re: living transitional skeletons
in any case, here are some living animals with various states of "hard spots" on the way to having a bony skeleton.
I think the consensus is that sharks are descended from bony fish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2011 2:23 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Wounded King, posted 01-14-2011 5:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 522 by Dr Jack, posted 01-14-2011 6:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 524 of 527 (600366)
01-14-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by Wounded King
01-14-2011 5:58 AM


Re: living transitional skeletons
I just mean fish which have bones where sharks have cartilage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Wounded King, posted 01-14-2011 5:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Dr Jack, posted 01-14-2011 8:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 526 of 527 (600370)
01-14-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by Dr Jack
01-14-2011 8:23 AM


Re: living transitional skeletons
Really? I must find out more about this; I had always understood that the cartilage in sharks was evolved from bone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Dr Jack, posted 01-14-2011 8:23 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2011 9:42 PM Dr Adequate 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