Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 157 (194880)
03-27-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 8:03 PM


Re: LOL
heh. thanks (both of you). Note, it's complete with an IC twist at the end, just for kicks.
actually I have been toying with a hydraulic powertrain for a recumbent bicycle (a friend is into restoring classic bikes and has a workshop) and that would probably be better able to turn braking force (kinetic) back into stored energy (potential) with a pressure tank.
that would be fun.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*27*2005 09:25 PM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 03-29-2005 10:04 AM RAZD has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 157 (194923)
03-28-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 8:51 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve.
quote:
My point in all this was to refute the argument that spontaneous generation was not included in the process of evolution. The arguments of my counterparts in this is as silly as trying to argue that creation was not part of the process of intelligent design.
A reply to message #48 would be peachy, buz.
I especially would like you to address my wind/aerodynamics analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 157 (194925)
03-28-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 9:48 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve. Nor Do Living.
quote:
The likelihood of the bike to motorbike is likely equal or better than the likelihood of building a single single functional protein randomly from primordial soup.
But it isn't purely random.
You "forgot" to include selection yet again, buz.
Selection, selection, selection. Why do you ignore selection?
What is the mental block all of you Creationists have with incorporating this utterly basic part of the mechanism of how evolution happens into your minds?
quote:
The chance of assembling 50 essential amino acids randomly to correct sequence so as to build a single functional "folded" protein would be about 10 to the 65th power or about one in the number of atoms in a galexy according to the following very interesting sight.
But it isn't purely random.
Selection, selection, selection, selection, selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Parasomnium, posted 03-28-2005 1:18 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 157 (194926)
03-28-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 10:01 AM


quote:
You know them as well as I.
No, sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about.
Please elucidate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 10:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 157 (194931)
03-28-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 10:06 AM


Re: ID at work here.
Right, and we can see and talk to the designer who wrote the program.
quote:
Off topic, but some of us do.
But if everyone cannot talk to your designer the way we can ALL talk to the guy who designed the software inquestion, that means it's NOT the same situation, right?
You do see that there is a big difference, right?
He can also show us the entire code of the program and explain exactly how he did it.
quote:
Get sensible if you want responses.
Excuse me? I wasn't the one comparing the IDer with a human software designer, you were.
One of the reasons we can confidently claim that the software was intelligentlu designed is that the designer can show us the entire code of the program and explain and demonstrate to us exactly how he wrote it. He can tell us what programming language it is in, and even teach us how to write in that language.
...and anyone in the world can do this. They don't thave to take anybody else's word for it that this person exists, if they are that skeptical of his existence.
Can I do that with your God?
Now, what is the positive evidence for your uberdesigner that is separate from what is designed? Is there any evidence that does not consist of "We don't have a naturalistic explanation so it must have been the IDer"?
quote:
See link in my recent post.
That is still a fallacious Argument from Incredulity, buz.
Besides, it is flawed because the very important element of selection is left out of the equasion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 10:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 157 (194965)
03-28-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
03-25-2005 12:13 AM


Re: ID at work here.
quote:
quote:
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.
Actually, I think it's a very fitting analogy to Theistic Evolution myself. Almost all proponents of ID that I've encountered here use the argument that IC-systems exist, and those by definition can't come around by simple processes.
On the other hand, we have something of a riddle here: A very intelligent designer could prefer to use processes that are self regulating simply because they do most of the work without requiring intelligence.
Or are you arguing that the way to see if a system is ID is to look for the purpose behind the system instead of the actual processes, and if so, what actual difference is there between ID and TE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 12:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 03-28-2005 1:14 PM Melchior has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 157 (194980)
03-28-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Melchior
03-28-2005 12:21 PM


What the I in ID stands for?
On the other hand, we have something of a riddle here: A very intelligent designer could prefer to use processes that are self regulating simply because they do most of the work without requiring intelligence.
I think that is perhaps my biggest objection to the concept of Intellegent Design. The folk that point to bits and pieces and say "Look, there was a designer" might be right if the 'I' stood for Inept or Incompetent.
On the other hand, if they pointed at the system, at the mechanism called Evolution, at the beauty of a process that is self-healing, self-regulating and warranted to produce critters fitted for their environment, I might have to go along with them. In fact I think that's just what GOD did.
The problem with my approach as they might see it (IMHO) is that it places no unusual value or significance on the existence of humans. But then I don't thing we were a particular goal of the process anyway but rather only a remarkable result.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Melchior, posted 03-28-2005 12:21 PM Melchior has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 68 of 157 (194981)
03-28-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
03-28-2005 8:49 AM


Deserved ad hominem
OK. It's official now. Does anybody remember what I said to Buzsaw some time ago?
Parasomnium writes:
[...] you creationists always hammer on the word 'random' only. It's time for you to try and refute the argument of random mutation AND selection. If, after you have read this, you still refuse to think about selection, I will take that as dishonesty.
And right here in this thread we see how Schrafinator catches Buzsaw doing it again. I may be risking suspension or even banning for what I am about to do, but I don't care. I think now would be a good time to take that megaphone I have on loan from Dan Carrol, and put it good use. So here goes:
{turns megaphone to max. volume}
BUZSAW IS DISHONEST. HE KNOWS ABOUT SELECTION. YET HE ALWAYS MENTIONS RANDOMNESS ONLY. SINCE HE HAS BEEN TOLD A MILLION TIMES THAT THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION CONSISTS OF RANDOM MUTATIONS AND SELECTION, THE FACT THAT HE MISREPRESENTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN ONLY MEAN THAT HE IS DISHONEST. BUZSAW IS DISHONEST. PASS IT ON: BUZSAW IS DISHONEST.
{switches off megaphone and prepares for suspension}
{edited to correct spelling}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 29-Mar-2005 09:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-28-2005 8:49 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by kjsimons, posted 03-28-2005 1:26 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 69 of 157 (194983)
03-28-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Parasomnium
03-28-2005 1:18 PM


Re: Deserved ad hominem
Well I hope the admins don't suspend you as Buz has it coming. I too have corrected him on the random mutation AND selection thing. He simply chooses to ignore that selection is a vital part of TOE. I agree with you that it is dishonest of him to do so and we shouldn't let him get away with it!
This message has been edited by kjsimons, 03-28-2005 01:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Parasomnium, posted 03-28-2005 1:18 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 4:57 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 70 of 157 (195126)
03-29-2005 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by kjsimons
03-28-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Deserved ad hominem
Thanks for the support, KJ.
I wonder what's keeping the admins from at least commenting on the issue? I don't mind being admonished for my transgression, or even suspended. I deserve that. But why is Buzsaw getting away, time and again, with his dishonest way of debating? By his own admission, he is aware of selection being a part of evolution:
Buzsaw writes:
Fyi, I've long been aware about NS.
Here's an excerpt from the forum rules:
quote:
2 Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration. {Italics mine, P.}
3 Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
.
.
.
7 Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Accepting the consequences of breaking rule 3, I accuse Buzsaw of repeatedly breaking rules 2 and 7.
In the interest of the debate in general, I would welcome any admin's comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by kjsimons, posted 03-28-2005 1:26 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AdminSchraf, posted 03-29-2005 7:52 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 71 of 157 (195129)
03-29-2005 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 9:48 AM


Re: Non Living Don't Evolve. Nor Do Living.
Buz,
First off, thanks for replying.
There are a few things I’d like to pick up on:
buzsaw writes:
The chance of assembling 50 essential amino acids randomly to correct sequence so as to build a single functional "folded" protein would be about 10 to the 65th power or about one in the number of atoms in a galexy
Aside from the obvious omission of selection (which has-ahem- already been mentioned once or twice), no one is saying that proteins of 50-odd amino acids had to spring out of nothing. I won’t labour the importance of selection, but I will ask you what you think is being selected for in the first place. Once any type of protein has been produced and selected for then (as Jacinto so aptly demonstrates in Message 24 ), the twin forces of evolution have a tendency of shortening the odds — climbing mount improbable, as Dawkins puts it.
Creationists like yourself are very fond of quoting these amazing odds, but what effect would these two factors have on the numbers?
1. What if the first proteins were much shorter than the 50aa that you propose?
In the fragile ‘RNA world’ that is postulated by many popular abiogenesis theories, any protein would give some kind of advantage to stability and structure. Once a successful protein sequence was produced then you’re away — life has no need to produce another protein de novo, it’s already got something to work with and duplicate. When you look at the way that proteins are made up you find that they are quite obviously modular.
There are surprisingly few basic structures made when proteins fold and you see them repeated in all of the different types of proteins. Even more complicated motifs (made up from maybe two or three of these basic modules) are seen repeated throughout nature, and in many cases within the same protein. It is clearly not a matter of starting from scratch, it’s a case of making do with what you’ve already got.
2. What if the number of amino acids wasn’t so large?
There is evidence that the early proteins were made from a genetic code with as little as 4 amino acids, and that these provide enough flexibility for a wide variety of simple structures. That would lead to a lot smaller figure too.
And before you pick up on the various ifs coulds and postulateds within this reply remember that in order to rebut the It’s just not statistically possible! argument, all that I have to do is show that it could reasonably be possible — I think I’ve done that.
Which leads me to this
buzsaw writes:
The likelihood of the bike to motorbike is likely equal or better than the likelihood of building a single single functional protein randomly from primordial soup
This is (as Schraf points out), based purely on personal incredulity. You’re claiming that because you don’t believe some thing is possible then it is fair game to come up with an example of something you think is equally unlikely and then argue from that second example! People could just as easily say that it is very unlikely that I will spontaneously turn into Kylie Minogue, but I don’t see too many creationists picking apart the steps required to go from slightly overweight, scruffy Brit to stunning Aussie songstress.
It is a very deliberate ploy by the ID movement because bikes and mousetraps can be easily demonstrated to be designed. The argument boils down to: a motorbike is designed, and therefore so is life — but the way a motorbike is produced bares no resemblance to how life works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 72 of 157 (195132)
03-29-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 8:03 PM


Intelligent? Not really.
Buzsaw comments on RAZD's example of evolution of a motorbike:
quote:
You need be highly commended, Razd, for the wonderfully intelligent designing of your bicycle.
There's nothing intelligent about RAZD's design, Buz. (No offence, RAZD, I'm talking about your design, not you. But you understand that, no doubt.)
Let's pick it apart, shall we?
RAZD writes:
adding a battery powered light to the bicycle
An intelligent designer would have thought of that right away.
RAZD writes:
Adding a generator to the system is a further improvement
An intelligently designed system doesn't need improvements, especially if the designer is deemed perfect.
RAZD writes:
Increasing the size of the {generator\motor} and the capacity of the storage battery
As if not including a generator in the first place isn't already a design failure, now it needs to be increased? Shouldn't the intelligent designer have thought of that before?
RAZD writes:
add a small motor to the generator to assist the generation of electricity, allowing the battery to be smaller
OK, so first you need a big battery and now a smaller one will suffice? So there was a waste of resources in the past? How intelligent is that?
RAZD writes:
link the motor directly to the drive mechanism to get around energy lost in the various intermediate stages
Wait a minute. This system is intelligently designed, yet energy gets wasted?
RAZD writes:
allow the {generator\battery} system to atrophy and fall off
That's the bloody limit! We don't need the generator/battery system after all? Whose money does this intelligent designer think he's spending?
In conclusion: if your Intelligent Designer is in any way like the one who developed RAZD's motorcycle, Buz, then he's fired.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2005 7:39 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 10:32 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 157 (195136)
03-29-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
03-29-2005 6:56 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
LOL
and that is the difference between evolved mechanisms and designed mechanisms
the other thing I forgot to mention is that due to the original generator evolved design, the motor is mounted on and connected to the front wheel, a design that limits the size the motor can grow due to the imbalance problem: thus you see small motor assisted bikes in europe (where the motor sits on top of the wheel and drives it very much like the generator image here), but all the big motorcycles have rear mounted motors that drive the rear wheel -- much more efficient from a design and function standpoint.
problem is that there is no way to "evolve" from a front mount to a back mount system, a situation that shows up in evolved features all over the place.
enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 6:56 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 8:22 AM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 157 (195138)
03-29-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Parasomnium
03-29-2005 4:57 AM


Re: Deserved ad hominem
Since buz and I have a history, and he already considered me grossly unfair and meanspirited, I don't think it would be useful for me to be the one to put the hammer down in this particular case.
However, I agree that you are completely correct in that buzsaw does repeatedly, chronically violate the forum guidelines, especially 2 and 7, as you point out.
I also agree that you definitely attacked the person, AND the argument.
I'm just a fledgeling Admin. I'll leave this one to the more experienced folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 4:57 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 75 of 157 (195142)
03-29-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
03-29-2005 7:39 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
RAZD writes:
the other thing I forgot to mention [...]
{moan} How the hell are we going to explain this to the board of directors? I guess the ones who hired the intelligent designer will have to be sacked too. Where will it all end?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2005 7:39 AM RAZD 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