Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

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? 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. 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. 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

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 has been observed in both nature and the lab, and it violates no known laws of physics. 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. 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. 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 it's time for you to do more discussing and less posturing.--Percy

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. 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". 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

Who designed the antenna?

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. How do you assess performance without using intelligence again?All you have is antenna that were generated by a man-made computer. Nothing more. No it does not. It illustrates the ingenuity of intelligent man. 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? No, evolutionary scientists believe this. Its is a belief of a bias community. Belief is not science. This is a theory not science.

YHBTI hear Miak works... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9ONw72pUyY

A computer generated the design.
However many times you ask the question, the answer is the same.Evolution does not have a computer.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

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 I ask the question you fail to answer it.Who designed the antenna? 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?

No. Unless you can tell us --- who designed the antenna? 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? Who designed the antenna? Was it an intelligent man who designed the antenna? If so, who was he? Show me where a dog cremated the universe in six ways. If you do not know what the word "theory" means then I suggest that you stop using it until you've looked it up.

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

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. 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) 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?

A program designed by intelligent people. .
This designs nothing. This builds nothing.

It was generated by a computer

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