IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!

hehwell that was part of my caveat at the beginning: that other "DNA" could be incorporated. basically saying that if it can evolve once it can evolve again given similar materials and selection pressure for its existence.we know that several forms of eyes evolved because of the basic incompatable differences (nautilus eye retina faces light, human retina doesn't ... and there is no way to "flip" the retina), therefor to posit a species evolving an eye is not a stretch and making a step that incorporates that understanding is basically shorthand.of course I could have broken it down into little steps, but I would still be writing ... the selection pressure was based on better survival (seeing in the dark, plus protective coloration to discourage attack by larger vehicles) or by accomplishing the same tasks with less peak output of energy.but aside from that this has served as an exellent platform to discuss just these differences (breaks arm patting self on back)

---

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

It's not that simple, Charles. To imply that NS can be totally isolated from randomness is a false implication and that's what's going on here. I know that many evolutionists like to argue this, but many are intellectually honest enough with themselves and others to know and to admit that randomness is involved to some extent in NS and the earlier in the process, the more the randomness.

---

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

So you are saying that the mainstream interpreations of TOE as presented by posters here DOES NOT contain both randomness and natural selection?

You're correct, NS cannot be totally isolated from randomness, and no one is claiming it is. For example, the baddest, meanest Tyrannosaurus Rex that ever lived might have been killed when an earthquake brought a cliff face down upon it, a completely random event, at least from a biological perspective. This Tyrannosaurus may have been ideally suited to dominate his environmental niche and should have had the opportunity to pass on its genes by mating many times, but its life was unfortunately prematurely snuffed out by a random event.But for the most part NS means competing with others, both of your own and other species, for access to resources such as food and mates. Those with characteristics enabling them to better compete are more likely to pass those characteristics on to succeeding generations. While randomness is not excluded from the process, randomness is not a significant component.The component of evolution that has a much larger component of randomness is mutation. Which mutations happen in a population is largely random, and the degree of advantage/disadvantage they confer is also largely random.The process of random mutation and natural selection is illustrated by bacterial experiments. Growing a population of bacteria on a substrate containing some hostile substance (within reason - sulfuric acid would not be good choice) will breed a population of resistant bacteria through a process of random mutation and natural selection. The mutations occur randomly, and some by chance will confer an advantage that allows the bacteria to continue growing and reproducing in the presence of the hostile substance. The DNA of the final bacterial population can be analyzed to reveal the nature of the genetic changes (random mutations) that conferred the advantage.--Percy

I said that contrary to the implications of evolutionists here, many evolutionists do believe that randomness is involved in NS.In the book, "What Evolution Is", Ernst Mayr says evolution is chaotic chancy events that, in time produce diverse species fitted for their environment.Mayr says evolution isultimately happens by chance/randomness, and that there are many unpredictable factors in alleged NS. Alleged NS, for example, is subject to environmental conditions which come about by chance and randomness.Alleged natural selection would be better described as natural variation, in that the results should naturally more likely lead to chaos than order from what is observed in the real here and now world. ref: Mayr, 2001, p.229It is only intelligence that has the capability to select. That's why I say, the earlier in the process, the more random the process is. Not until intelligence is accomplished is there any possibility of any degree of selection. It's easy to say that an advanced species can select, but not so easy to say that primitive life could allegedly select apart from randomness.Even advanced species would need some motivation of selection. Why on earth would a sea creature have the desire or motivation to become a land lubber??? If it were to become so, it would have to come about by chance/randomness.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-30-2005 11:40 AM

---

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

Hi Percy. You know and my counterparts should know by now that over time, buzsaw has referred to RM/NS numerous times in specific reference to the process as depicted by those who believe it. it is totally meanspirited and obnoxious forum behavior for my counterparts to call me on being dishonest and in violation of rules when I refer to the whole process as random. This's the way I see it and I should not be denied that right to express what I believe as I believe it. In fact, in message 10 right here early in this thread I referred to it as both random and natural, though I omitted the word, "selective." I was using a non-specific terminology of the alleged process. I don't have anything specific in mind, but I know this generalization goes on all the time here at EvC. Why then should these, my meanspirited counterparts get by with raising all this dogpile like hellibaloo over this with impunity, attacking my character in violation to forum guidelines.?

---

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

Hi back, buzsaw!Ok, I don't see the problem.
Could have existed is the only way to put it.
That's what science tries to figure out with regard to the inaccesible past, what could have been. Unless we have some kind of time machine, that's as good as it gets, the most plausible scenario.That's what differentiates science from religion.
Science says maybe, could have, and even most likely, while religion says most definitely based on an equal or lesser amount of evidence.If you think you are in the minority and would like to be in a majority, there is another board here that's on your side. It didn't take me long to get banned from this one. If you are in the minority and you let the least bit of sarcasm or condescension in your posts, and you will be banned immediately with no warning. If you are a creationist, you can be as flippant as you want to be.

Hi RAZD, I'd just like to point out that the products of typical chemical reactions aren't nearly as random as that. Firstly, molecules are not normally built up bare atom by bare atom as the mental model here would imply. I could be totally mistaken about reactions in interstellar space. There is plenty of atomic hydrogen, but I'm not sure about oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. I would think that carbon would be mostly in the form of methane, oxygen as water, and nitrogen as ammonia. So you usually start out with molecules that have to overcome an energy barrier to react with each other, and on the other side of that hill there is a distribution of thermodynamic states that the products can fall into. This severly limits the products of the reaction to one or two major products in most cases (especially for simple molecules of only a few atoms).I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding Jacinto's probability exercise, though and I'm not too versed on space chemistry.

I was trying to participate as a normal member, but the sheer perversity expressed here combined with your history and your increasingly unconcstructive manner forces my hand. You have made many valuable contributions to EvC Forum, but your time here is at an end. Your posting privileges are permanently suspended.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I know buz has been permanently shown the door, but I felt the need to correct a misapprehension in this post, in case anyone was looking. Mayr says no such thing. Quoting from the relevant portions of the book buz referenced:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, some of the strict adaptationists forgot that natural selection is a two-step process. To be sure, selection for adaptedness is paramount at the second step, but this is preceeded by a first step - the production of the variation that provides the material for the selection process, and here stochastic processes (chance, contingency) are dominant. (pg 228)

---

and

quote:

---

One can conclude from these observations that evolution is neither merely a series of accidents nor a deterministic movement toward ever more perfect adaptation. To be sure, evolution is in part an adaptive process, because natural selection operates in every generation. The principle of adaptationism has been adopted so widely by Darwinians because it is such a heuristic methodology. To question what the adaptive properties might be for every attribute of an organism leads almost inevitably to a deeper understanding. However, every attribute is ultimately the product of variation, and this variation is largely a product of chances. Many authors seem to have a problem in comprehending the citurally simultaneous actions of two seemingly opposing causations, chance and necessity. But this is precisely the pwer of the Darwinian process. (page 229)

---

Mayr doesn't talk about chaos or anything else. He is emphasizing the importance of BOTH elements of RM/NS - the random/contingent and the deterministic/necessary. I'm not sure where buz got his information, but it wasn't from Mayr.

Jacinto's calculation was purely in answer to the creatortiontista calculation of the improbability of a (already occuring) molecule being formed purely by chance.The point is that their calculation is so grossly in error because of errors of omission, most notably here, the ommision that the order of the formation is irrelevant to the final product.The point is to compare the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (your typical astronomically impossible number) with 1 in 2284.7 calculated using Jacinto's method, a 437,700,000,000th reduction factor.your points are valid with these caveats: add {energy\catalysts\non-aerobic environment} to the system and those reactions can be enabledOne recent paper at NASA looked at the molecules on the murchison meteor then added the energy of impact of a typical meteor and looked at the result: some molecules combined.see {SURVIVABILITY OF SIMPLE BIOMOLECULES DURING EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL DELIVERY: THERMAL EFFECTS} abstract at
http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/%7Emax/abstracts.htmlabout 3/4ths down the page

---

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

brennakimiI apologize for the misunderstanding and also for taking so long to reply,however,my internet was down for a few days.

haha it happens.

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

My point in all this was to refute the argument that spontaneous generation was not included in the process of evolution.

---

Why would it since spontaneous generation has been disproven? And yet, we still have evolution. Why would you try to connect a solidly substantiated theory with a piece of unproven junk?Spontaneous generation is not included in the process of evolution.Nor is abiogenesis.Are you saying god is incapable of creating life that evolves?I've asked you that question numerous times. You have yet to give an answer. It is not rhetorical. I really want to hear your answer:Are you saying god is incapable of creating life that evolves?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, Buz won't answer. He's banned.