|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Buzsaw comments on RAZD's example of evolution of a motorbike:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Admin writes: [...] those who repeatedly undertake the same task with little success, those who keep following the same script and for some reason expect something different to happen someday, need their sanity checked. Point taken.
Admin writes: [...] I don't think suspensions or even admonitions are called for yet in this discussion. At least it got Buzsaw to investigate what he calls RM/NS, and I'd say that counts for something. In the meantime, I am returning the megaphone to Dan. He's much funnier with it than I could ever hope to be.
Admin writes: Sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps another moderator will have some better insights. Better than this?
quote: Unlikely. "Near total amnesia", now that was really funny! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Did I say "much funnier with it"? Scratch that. He's much, much funnier even without it!
(Dan? Never, ever stop, OK?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Excellent post. It ties in with an idea I proposed in this thread.
I have one comment though.
Soplar writes: The fact that over 95% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct is proof of the effectiveness of the T&E design process. It depends on what you think this effectiveness is about. A lot of those extinct species were very successful designs in their day. They've been tried and not been found "errors" for long periods of time. Only when circumstances changed, did they become unfit and were discarded. Since circumstances will always keep changing, the fraction of extinct species will keep rising. If you wait long enough, practically all species that have ever existed will have become extinct. On the face of it, it would then seem as though this process of trial and error is incapable of producing anything worthwhile. So, if you mean effectiveness in terms of weeding out errors, then the 95% indeed proves effectiveness, but it's a moot point in view of the future trend of this number. But of you mean effectiveness in terms of innovation, then your 95% sort of proves the opposite. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 27-Oct-2005 10:35 AM "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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024