IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!

Guys, I am currently re-reading Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' and one of his examples stuck on my mind. In page 44 he asked whether we can evolve bicycles into motorcycles by using only random variations and natural selection. He allows for a factory and a blueprint to simulate bicycle reproduction and blueprint (which can be mutated). However, Behe said the motorcycle is an irreducibly complex system and the bicycle cannot be a functional precursor to a motorcycle.So I challenge my friends evo and cre: If I start with a factory that produces bicycles from a mutable blueprint, what evolutionary steps would be needed to achieve the final product of a motorcycle?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well gee, what's the mechanism by which the bicycles would reproduce?

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

What would the selection criteria here be?I rather suspect for any criteria that was not entirely arbitary (i.e select for more like a motorbike) this particular example wouldn't work. However, from a motorised skateboard to a motorbike - now that might work, and from a car to a motorbike could definetly be done.

What are the selection pressures? I mean is it just us seeing if we can fiddle with all the parts enough to make a motorcycle? I'm sure its possible to make a rudimentary engine from metal and rubber (and anything else that bikes are made from. Basically large numbers of designs get drawn onto the bike.However i suspect you want a little more than this.1. The only true selection pressures i can think of that could effect bicycles in terms of evolutionary ability would be either speed, power and agility. Unfortunatly im sure there are easier immediate results from simply make the bike lighter, adding suspension, gears etc. There would be way for the bike to develop an engine without losing out to it immediate compadres, and hence the mutation wouldnt be carried on.2. Assuming the selection pressures are just actually what i want as far as getting an engine to finish with then that makes it easier.It would take billions of billions of billions of mutations, slowly picking the ones that become more engine like (im assuming i get to have lots of pictures of engines sat next to me so i can tell which of my mutations are getting closer.) Then with enough time, i would imagine we'd be there. Cept maybe for a battery and fuel.

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

Hi, This concept of 'evolving' non living things has been covered many times in this board. Non living things do not evolve. But for the sake of analogys It does not take to big a stretch of the imagination to see that motorcycles were in fact bicycles with motors.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Living things are controlled and "evolved" through changes in a code known as the GENETIC CODE.Computers are controlled by a binary code, comparable to the genetic code.It is theoretical possible do design intelligent programs ( "virtual intelligence")Is it possible for your PC to generate its own code ?It has a few advanages and a head start over the so called "living "
genetic code found in RNA and DNA.1. It was designed by intelligence.
2. An abundance of hardware ( computers and the Internet) to run on. ( The genetic code developes its own hardware as it "evolves")
3. Millions of computers runninbg IDE's.
4. Continuous mutations , interlinking, write read errors etc . the same errors occuring in DNA are occuring in computer code.These are just a few advantages giving BINARY CODE an edge over GENETIC CODE.When are we going to see the first SKYNET ala Terminator in the very near future?Are we very near the time when the border between the living and non livng will be demolished?Jydee

You might find it interesting to look up something called neural computers. They are essentially computers that takes an input and gives a wanted output.The neat thing is that you don't program them with code. You train them, by giving them a set of inputs and the outputs you want from them. They change internally to suit the specific examples you give it. Usually the inputs are patterns, such as images or texts.Eventually the computer/program get good enough to do this on it's own without any person ever looking or changing the actual code.This is already partially implemented in things like trainable spam filters. You can even use those at home and train them for your own mailbox.

i wold like to point out that 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.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 07:23 AM

Thanks 1.*******. You just falsified evolution in one fell swoop.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Please explain.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

not necessarily.that spontaneous generation bit about the origin of life is not really part of evolution. evolution is the biological process by which living things become other living things. spontaneous generation is chemistry and not necessary to the theory. it is a separate idea. however. non-living things do participate in chemical reactions and can become entirely different non-living things. the only question here is did a non-living thing ever become living and how. but then. what is it that really makes us living because we are reducible to mere chemical reactions. so what makes us different. in fact, are we?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-24-2005 11:55 PM

Could you please explain? How does the statement, "Non living things do not evolve. " Falsify evolution?

Yes, and all those billions in the direction opposite of the direction things observed tend to go, i.e, into chaos. It'll all be a heap of rust before a hand full of mutations in the right direction occur. For example, size wise, the heap of rust is in the right direction sizewise but disastrous to the desired outcome.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Well, using the airplane analogy, the evolution airplane's gotta get off the ground before it flies. Like, the inorganic's gotta evolve into organic to begin with.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw