IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!

Wouldn't spontaneous generation be required as the first step or precursor of the evolutionary process?God is entirely capable of creating something that evolves, but the pertinent question is what do you mean by evolution? If you're refering to Darwinian evolution (macro), than it presupposes a purely naturalistic cause, so the question becomes a moot point. If you're refering to micro evolution, I would say yes, it happens because it can be observed and no, that doesn't contradict a Creationist viewpoint.

There is a whole forum available for "Origin of Life" topics. Please take the discussion there. No it does not presuppose any cause for the origin of life.In fact, Darwin himself made this statement:

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

---

It seems to me that "breathed" allows for the Christian perspective but is ambiguous enough to allow for others.That is about all the Darwin had to say on the origin of life. And evolutionary biology says nothing more while it is discussing the evolution of living things.As for micro evolution and other, that too is OFF TOPIC!For that discussion you could try any one of a number of threads:
'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution
Information and Biology
Explain this to me please. Talk.origin article on Micro and Macro
Always talking about micro-evolution?I suggest that the first thing you do is define micro evolution. (there is a little used biological definition that is about evolutionary changes below the level of species - is that what you mean? -- DO NOT GIVE ANSWER HERE -- add it to the first thread in that list).

there's also "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? (click)looks like SonClad is still finding his way around and may need a little help.welcome to the fray SonClad! look into all the different forums as there is quite a diversity. There is also a search function, so if you want to talk about a topic you can search for a thread that has already been opened on it.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

see my post at :-http://EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory -->EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory>This message has been edited by jasonlang, 07-20-2005 10:11 AM

So, before using my time to reply to you, I gotta ask,Are you spam?I don't like talking to my "meat." At least, not unless it's really special "meat."Thanks.
Ben

Welcome to EvC.One warning though. Generally we prefer that you do not post the same content in more than one thread. If you wish to refer to the information in another thread you can insert a link to the original.At the end of this message you will find links to several threads that will make your stay here more enjoyable.Again, welcome to EvC.

---

Hey sorry, i'm new to the internet/forum thing and i only get limited time to use internet each day, at work.I looked at the last date posted in this thread and it was over 2 months ago (noticed after i posted sorry ) so i didn't think this thread was active, ie nobody would read it, therefore i reposted to another thread which seemed the most relevant and active : 'developments in Intelligent Design Theory', any replies should be targetted there, though if you have any ideas on a thread which is more relevant let me know.Thanks for the comments, it shouldn't be a problem againP.S. to ben: I am definitely not spam, if you can find any of my above post on any other site/forum/newsgroup i'll be suprised indeed... i'd liken my post more to marbled beef, though very undercookedThis message has been edited by jasonlang, 07-20-2005 11:51 AMThis message has been edited by jasonlang, 07-21-2005 09:41 AM

quote:

---

To begin with, lets imagine a hand of five cards dealt from a thoroughly-shuffled deck. The odds of getting any specific combination of five cards are one in 311,875,200 (~0.00000000320641). Long odds, indeed. But every single possible hand combination displays the same likelihood (or unlikelihood, as the case may be!), so to look backward at a dealt hand and proclaim "That hand had only a 1 in 311,875,200 chance of occurring naturally, therefore it must have been intelligently arranged!" is a non-sequitir, because it essentially amounts to "predicting" with a 1:1 possibility that any hand will show this result! This is why retrodiction of the improbability of past events is completely irrelevant to establishing intelligent causality: one is not actually describing a case of a 1-in-311,875,200 shot, but rather a 1-in-1 shot of an event displaying a probability of 1 in 311,875,200.

---

I for one do not feel that Behe's bycycle example is the best way to establish ID. However, I find it strange to accuse Behe of mixing "apples & oranges", then rebuting him with another set of "apples & oranges". You see, if I tell you that card decks don't have sex, then you'll probably know how Behe feels too. But as long as we defend our own positions, I guess rules can be twisted.I'm tempted to use some apples & oranges of my own, in response to yours actually. Only to show that these non-organic analogies, either way, can be used in favour of one's arguement and position. Of course, no one bothered to point that out because, 95% of the peple on this forum are on your side.Here it goes,instead of shuffling cards, or building bicycles into hot motor rides, let's try something different. I'll ask you to shuffle 10 buckets of paint. Don't even mix them actually, we'll just use them. Take 1 000 000 page painting sheets. On each sheet, I'll ask you to throw some paint on randomly, just do whatever, splat that bad boy all over the sheet. Try it randomly 1 000 000 times. We'll see if we can evolve, by pure probabilities, on the 986 657th try, a perfect work of art resembling a painting of Michael Angelo? Looking like it's designed, looking as though the precision of the paint and the mixture of colours and the pressure of the arm and hand all coordinated to bring us Mona Lisa's smile only...randomly..I will bet my bottom dollar it will never happen. Not after 1 billion times.You'll say, "that's dishonest argumentation, you're mixing apples and oranges!"And I'll say....EXACTLY! That's my point, just like you did with the cards and Behe did with Biclecycle.So on these grounds, I would like to officially dismiss Jacinto's point on this topic as : DebunkedNow, if we wanna start talking about how Neutral shift affects noe-darwinists' explanations about human evolution, and discuss the 2% DNA separation between Chimps and Humans, but distanced by 350 000 amino acids nonetheless, then let us carry on...cheers all!

i bet my bottom dollar i can paint you a pretty good jackson pollock though.see, if we're gonna compare apples and oranges, let's compare apples that LOOK like oranges to the oranges. if we're dripping paint, let's talk about things that look paint drips.now, there's a big problem with this whole argument, of course. we're trying to match something up exactly to an already existing work. now, i'm a pretty talented artist (if i can toot my own horn for a sec) and i'm pretty well verse in the technique pollock used. but i couldn't paint you an exact duplication of his work.how about we pick a more impressive analogy, yet flawed in the same way. if we're checking for a match to a specific painting, let's check for a match. we'll determine that our artificial selection will take place on the basis of similarity to a photograph of michaelangelo's sistine ceiling, say the famous birth of adam picture.we start off with an empty screen on the computer, and apply pixels completely randomly. each pixel gets a random location and color, and we'll start with a small set. just a few. now, the closer that pixel is in color to the corresponding pixel of the photo, the longer it will last. for the purposes of this example, we'll keep the pixels that are perfect matches. the longer a pixel is around the more likely it is to reproduce.here's the catch -- reproduction is interpolation. pixel produces an offspring at an empty one of the 8 pixels surrounding it, and the color of that pixel is generated at random, seeded with the average of its parent and others pixel surrounding it.having messed about with similar algorithms, i'm willing to make two claims.1. that given a suffient starting set and a photo of large enough dpi, the painting will eventually be reproduced to enough degree that it will be recognizable.2. the picture will be apparent, though no exact, rather quickly.flat shaded paintings will do better, stippling will be close to impossible, and alternating pixels would be intelligent design.(also, i feel the need to point out that michaelangelo, one word, did not paint la giaconda, "the mona lisa.")This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-18-2005 08:33 PM

---

אָרַח

i would like to point out my original post in this thread, back on page one.

quote:

---

i wold like to point out that [t]he first motorcycles were motorized bicycles. in fact, some motorcycles today still use a frame very similar to a bicycle frame, although heavier and squatter.

​

added by edit: that is to say, even in non genetic/organic processes, like a case that's obviously intelligent design (made by us), the principles of common descent still apply. all new designs are based on old ones.

---

all design is somewhat analogous to evolution. remember old school choppers, ala easy rider? where did they come from, do you suppose? did someone create them ex-nihilo?no. people had motorcycles before that. a chopper was a motorcycle taken apart, chopped up, extended here and there, and rearranged. as the style caught on, choppers get wilder, and show different trends in popularity, much like a breeding community. both factors are factors of taste, and mass-production is similar to reproduction. the things that work better and look sexier get more made, and more new things are influenced by those changes.things get borrowed from other designs, too, sort of like convergent evolution. sometimes things are outright stolen -- hybridization and inter-species breeding (like mules/hinnies and tigons/ligers).if anyone is REALLY interested in the analogy, go research the history of motorcycles. although the first motorcycle ever made as not technically a bicycle, its design directly mimicked one. bicycles were of course around for many years prior.the interesting bit is that the first modern gasoline engine is also in the first motorcycle. the cycle itself was aparently build, like a bicycle, to hold the engine, which was the real advance. before that, the very same people were building steam engines and doing very similar things with them (carriages, etc).after that. most of the first motorcycle inventors were people who owned bike shops and factories. the first production motorcycles were bicycles with gasoline engines. after that, it's pretty easy to see how the bicycle frame and components gradually change over time into today modern choppers.i'll post pictures of this part if i have to.so perhaps behe should be asking us to evolve a steam turbine into a piston. that is, afterall, what he says in his book -- larger systems composed of components cannot be ic, because you just take them apart into their components.

---

אָרַח

butyou keep putting selection back into the picture while auser_maat keeps trying to ignore it to make his (thereby corrupted) point.problem is that auser_maat is not discussing evolution but a strawman.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

More like horizontal transfer of a whole feature so that you cannot reconcile a common ancestory pattern - because there are two or more different ancestors to the design in process.This is the biggest failing of ID - good design would predict this occurring, fossil & genetic evidence says it doesn't.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

mine's actually the strawman, because evolution doesn't have a master plan to check itself against.

---

אָרַח

well, it's sort of like convergent evolution, but not quite. i don't think there's outright theft and assimilation in the animal world ---- now, if we were borg...

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

now, there's a big problem with this whole argument, of course. we're trying to match something up exactly to an already existing work. now, i'm a pretty talented artist (if i can toot my own horn for a sec) and i'm pretty well verse in the technique pollock used. but i couldn't paint you an exact duplication of his work.

​

how about we pick a more impressive analogy, yet flawed in the same way. if we're checking for a match to a specific painting, let's check for a match. we'll determine that our artificial selection will take place on the basis of similarity to a photograph of michaelangelo's sistine ceiling, say the famous birth of adam picture.

---

I think I should become a fortune teller. How did I know someone was going to come up with yet another set of "apples & oranges", then argue the set taste better then the others?I even know the reason actually, since arach was honest enough to admit that his set have just as many problems as mine, jacinto or behe's, but yet, he couldn't help himself. Because, he is trying to prove his point.It's amazing how this debate resembles inter-faith debates so much. Not to mention that within Evolution, another debate resembles this one, Neutral Theory vs. Natural Selection: Which is more dominant in the Evolution process?Of course, this is for another Forum discussion.But again, thanx arach, you validated my point.Jacinto's, Behe's, Ausar's, Arach's Apples & Oranges, all...debunked.
(Arach by his own account mind you)Thank you,