Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
106 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 102 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,966 Year: 1,078/6,534 Month: 1,078/682 Week: 131/182 Day: 10/16 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 157 (194284)
03-25-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by macaroniandcheese
03-24-2005 11:55 PM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
Call it what you want, but it's gotta happen in the evolution process.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-24-2005 11:55 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 12:44 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 157 (194286)
03-25-2005 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Melchior
03-24-2005 6:46 AM


Re: ID at work here.
You train them, by giving them a set of inputs and the outputs you want from them.

Yes, ID at work, providing the equipment and setting up the process, creating the capability to accomplish the desired goal of the designer.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Melchior, posted 03-24-2005 6:46 AM Melchior has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 03-27-2005 7:54 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 66 by Melchior, posted 03-28-2005 12:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 18 of 157 (194300)
03-25-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
03-25-2005 12:08 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
no, it doesn't. look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 12:08 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 1:20 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 157 (194311)
03-25-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by macaroniandcheese
03-25-2005 12:44 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[qs]no, it doesn't. look it up.[/q]

No spontaneous generation.......no evolution......simple as that.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 12:44 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2005 1:51 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 9:44 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 48 by nator, posted 03-27-2005 8:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Jydee
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 157 (194312)
03-25-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Melchior
03-24-2005 6:46 AM


TLU networks
You are referring to TLU (Threshold logic units) networks. Some experts also refer to them as neural networks
because they model some of the properties of biological neurons(nerve cells) ( one author to refer to is Nils J Nilsson)

Even if the user or secondary programmer is not generating code, in the back ground the different components of the
hardware communicate in machine language and machine language is binary code, ( nots = closed circuits and
ones = open circuits)

TLU networks form the basic technology for many AI projects.

(AI = artificial intelligence)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Melchior, posted 03-24-2005 6:46 AM Melchior has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 21 of 157 (194327)
03-25-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
03-25-2005 1:20 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
buzsaw

No spontaneous generation

What does spontaneous generation mean exactly?

This message has been edited by sidelined, Thu, 2005-03-24 11:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 1:20 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 6:45 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 22 of 157 (194396)
03-25-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
03-25-2005 1:20 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
spontaneous generation is not part of evolution any more than the big bang is. it's a separate theory which uneducated people squish together because they have to have a single all-encompassing theory to disprove.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 1:20 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2005 11:23 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 23 of 157 (194423)
03-25-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by macaroniandcheese
03-25-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
brennakimi

Thanks for the input,however,I would like to know what buzsaw understands this term to signify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 9:44 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 6:51 PM sidelined has responded

  
Jacinto
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 157 (194429)
03-25-2005 11:47 AM


Good morning, all. I'm new here.

I find this particular argument of Behe's to be unconvincing. When I first read DBB, I was an eager Christian and ID supporter (I'm now an atheist and evolutionist), but I was suspicious that the argument was a false analogy even then. As one or more of you have already mentioned, motorcycles and organic molecules aren't comparable.

But even if they were, we would be faced with only an argument from improbability, and such arguments utterly fail. The reason (which I'm sure someone at some point has already pointed out on these boards) is twofold: retrodiction of an improbable event is tantamount to describing a 1:1 probability, and remarkably improbable non-intelligently caused events can and do occur all the time. All that is required is a sufficient number of opportunities for the event to occur.

To begin with, let’s 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.

Let’s now consider the other reason that arguments from improbability fail: longitudinal opportunity for success. Let's assume that five separate chemical bonding events are required to form a certain amino acid (a simple one like glycine or alanine). We’ll label these events A, B, C, D, and E. To avoid overestimating our chances, let’s arbitrarily assign relatively small probabilities (less than 2%) to each, given only one occurrence of proximity/contact between the requisite atoms:

P(A)=0.0025
P(B)=0.0137
P(C)=0.0154
P(D)=0.0018
P(E)=0.0024

Now, what are the odds of this specific amino acid being formed in one attempt (i.e., given only one chance for each event to occur)? We use the following formula:

P(all events occurring) = P(A) x P(B) x P(C) x P(D) x P(E)

We get a result of 0.000000000002278584, or roughly 1 in 438.6 billion that all the necessary events will happen in one attempt.

A hopelessly long shot, no doubt. But then we wonder: what are the odds of at least one of these events occurring, if each has only one chance to do so?

We use the formula:

P(A or B or C or D or E) = 1- [P(~A) x P(~B) x P(~C) x P(~D) x P(~E)]

We get 0.035381082189274984, or 1 in 29 that at least one will occur on our first attempt* to randomly construct our amino acid! These odds are much more encouraging. And mathematically, if we give it 29 attempts, we'll certainly get the first of our necessary chemical bonds, and be one step closer to forming our amino acid. Let's imagine that D is the lucky event, and we get a stable organic molecule as a result. Now we have only four more bonds to effect:

P(A)=0.0025
P(B)=0.0137
P(C)=0.0154
P(E)=0.0024

The odds of at least one of these events occurring on our very next bonding attempt is 0.03364163713612, or roughly 1 in 29, again. So let's take our molecule again and give it 29 more chances to pick up other atoms. Done. Second bond formed. So after only 58 total attempts, we've got 2/5 of our amino acid formed.

It's not hard to see how easy it is to build complex organic chemicals, given enough time and opportunities for the necessary events to occur.

-J

*By "attempt" I'm just referring to blind chances for the atoms to bond, floating around and bumping into each other in the primordial soup. It's not meant to convey deliberate manipulation.


Siempre que enseñes, enseña a la vez a dudar de lo que enseñas.

-José Ortega y Gasset


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminJar, posted 03-25-2005 12:19 PM Jacinto has not yet responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2005 10:51 PM Jacinto has responded
 Message 113 by ausar_maat, posted 10-18-2005 7:50 PM Jacinto has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 157 (194435)
03-25-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jacinto
03-25-2005 11:47 AM


Welcome jacinto
Always good to see YAT.

At the bottom of this message are some links to topics that may help make your stay here enjoyable.

Looking forward to learning from you.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jacinto, posted 03-25-2005 11:47 AM Jacinto has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 157 (194444)
03-25-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
06-10-2004 5:26 AM


Ofcourse, we know that men created and designed both bikes and motorbikes. So there's your designer for you.

There could also be a designer in this same fashion, if evolution happened, because a mindful execution of complex input is always required, answering all the questions, as referenced with my Hypothesis of consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-10-2004 5:26 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 7:02 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 157 (194509)
03-25-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by sidelined
03-25-2005 1:51 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
What does spontaneous generation mean exactly?

Some will disagree, but I'll go with Gould and Huxley on that. Alleged spontaneous generation is the alleged genesis of evolution or biogenesis, i.e. bio-genesis, i.e. beginning of life spontaneously/randomly.

Steven Gould of Harvard, one of the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century said:

Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.

Julian Huxley said:

The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general.

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-25-2005 06:46 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2005 1:51 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-26-2005 11:17 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2005 3:04 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 28 of 157 (194511)
03-25-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by sidelined
03-25-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
that would be why i was responding to him and not to you.

btw. i didn't give a definition for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2005 11:23 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by sidelined, posted 03-30-2005 10:47 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 157 (194513)
03-25-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
03-25-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Hey Mike The Whiz!
Ofcourse, we know that men created and designed both bikes and motorbikes. So there's your designer for you.

Hey Mike The Whiz, good bud from UK, good to have you posting again. Help us build up a Christian coalition here in town so as to keep these secularists busy and scatter their forces a bit. :cool:

Yup, Mike, them bikes aintagona evolve engines and all that to make a motorized bike in a cajillion years without a smart mechanic and designer. No way!


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 12:53 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 7:36 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 157 (194520)
03-25-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
03-25-2005 7:02 PM


Re: Hey Mike The Whiz!
Hi Buz bud. Good to be back. :)

They just can't get rid of us eh? The design is so very obvious it seems that one day maybe they'll realize this. And pigs might fly, with mutations ofcourse. ;)

Yup, Mike, them bikes aintagona evolve engines and all that to make a motorized bike in a cajillion years without a smart mechanic and designer. No way!

Infact, it's a good point. This goes for everything aswell. There are so many questions to be answered from the chance-naturalist group. What with the fine-tuned universe etc. All the order leads us with the most logical and correct position that there is a designer, according to and agreeing with the principle of parsimony. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 7:02 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 8:08 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 35 by jar, posted 03-26-2005 12:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-27-2005 8:09 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022