Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 157 (194559)
03-25-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jacinto
03-25-2005 11:47 AM


Welcome to the fray.

Nice point on the probability.

I ran it for all five with a probability of 1 in 1000, where the "all at once" argument calculates the probability at 0.0015 or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (your typical astronomically impossible number)

And the one by one events work out to:

1st one in 5 = 0.00499 (1 in 200.4)
2nd one in 4 = 0.00399 (1 in 250.4)
3rd one in 3 = 0.00300 (1 in 333.7)
4th one in 2 = 0.00200 (1 in 500.3)
5th one in 1 = 0.00100 (1 in 1000)
SUM = 1 in 2284.7 to finish the job

Not only that, but as you add more "complexity" to the issue you are adding in smaller and smaller increments.
a sixth bond would add a 1 in six = 0.00598 or 1 in 167.1, and a total of 1 in 2451.6, a 7th would add a 1 in 7 = 0.00698 or 1 in 143.3 and a total of 1 in 2595.1

diminishing increments the further you go (an expotential decay I believe) and certainly well within the realms of possibility by anyones stretched imagination.

then add to this the probability that any of a number of complex amino acids can result as stable molecules (your "retrodiction" comment applied to the molecule in question) and you start getting multiples of possible ends instead of 1, and those multiples reduce the {1 in 2284.7} or {1 in 2451.6} or {1 in 2595.1} by the same amount

if I needed to make any of {1 of 100} 5-bonded molecules I now have a 1 in 22.847 probability.

and even that does not complete the possibilities, as any duplex bond could combine with a triplex bond set instead of adding single bonds, and the longer the molecule you need the more possibilities there are for joining smaller multi-bond molecules.


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 24 by Jacinto, posted 03-25-2005 11:47 AM Jacinto has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jacinto, posted 03-26-2005 4:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 157 (194724)
03-26-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jacinto
03-26-2005 4:25 PM


try this again and see if I can get through it without crashing ... (don't you hate losing posts just before you post them?)

Jacinto writes:

You extrapolated my calculations out even beyond what I thought necessary ... the more bonds take place, the more potential bonding sites to the molecule are created

yes. you piqued my interest in seeing what the final result was for strict comparison to develop a preselected formation. if you do open it up to the probabilities of creating a soup with varieties of amino acid building blocks then each addition can be thought to have the same probability of bonding to any previous location, thus the fifth and last of a 5 bond molecule would have a 1 in 1000 probability with each of the previous 4, or a total 1 in 250 chance.

As if the amino acids discovered in the Murchison meteorite weren't sufficient

and the lake tagish meteor
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/PDF/tagish.pdf

and the organics found in deep interstellar space (and hence as old as the light path ... ), unfortunately my link to Identifying polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in space is broken now (such is life in cyberspace), but I have these quotes from it (saved at another site):

August 13, 2001

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules are the most abundant family of molecules in the interstellar medium after molecular hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and contain about 10% of all the interstellar carbon.

Recently, a spectral database has become available from the Infrared Space Observatory that contains objects in which we have found the C-H PAH stretch feature (near 3.26 µm) in absorption. Using the database of isolated neutral PAHs generated by the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory, we can match the interstellar feature fairly well with a mixture of PAH molecules. However, the mixture is not unique and does not tell us which particular PAHs are present in space. This is demonstrated in the Figure which shows two fits to the absorption observed towards the protostellar source S140. The laboratory database contains only a few PAHs as large as those expected to survive the rigors of the interstellar medium, so it is perhaps not surprising that a precise match is still not possible. Techniques for obtaining lab spectra of larger PAHs exist, but making large PAHs for lab studies is very difficult. Once such lab data exist, being able to directly compare lab and interstellar spectra without using uncertain models could provide the first identification of individual PAHs in space.

this is also mentioned in:
http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/%7Emax/abstracts.html

there is also Scientists Toast the Discovery of Vinyl Alcohol in Interstellar Space
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zi.html

also see NASA - Origins of Life
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

and Nature - Mineral brew grows 'cells' (need sign-up\sign-in)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040426/full/040426-5.html

Maselko and Strizhak mixed calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, copper chloride, sodium iodide, hydrogen peroxide and starch. They found a fungus-like, soft membrane grows out of the mixture, enclosing a hollow cavity up to 1 cm across. Chemicals diffuse through this membrane, react inside the cavity, and then diffuse out, creating swirling clouds of violet liquid in the green base solution.

Rather than reaching equilibrium, this process persists. The reactions, say the researchers, are reminiscent of the way living cells sustain themselves, driven from equilibrium by the flow of chemicals and energy across their membranes.

if you access the webpage there are some cool pictures.

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 36 by Jacinto, posted 03-26-2005 4:25 PM Jacinto has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:28 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 157 (194726)
03-26-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
03-26-2005 5:07 PM


be careful what you wish for
every instance I know of where intelligence has intentionally interfered with the development of species to get a "designed" result, the purpose has been to make it a "better" food source ... :D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 03-26-2005 5:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:42 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 157 (194810)
03-27-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 8:42 AM


Re: be careful what you wish for
LOL, except in S.America ...

and the depressed cat population around (ethnic reference deleted) restaurants ...

it's just a reference to an old science fiction story where it turns out humans are bred for ....


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 50 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 11:23 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 157 (194847)
03-27-2005 3:55 PM


LOL
I am going to assume that as any part of the bicycle plans ("DNA") are available to chose from and mix parts into new arrangements, I also have access to the "DNA" of other mechanisms as possible things to evolve on a bicycle.

Thus adding a battery powered light to the bicycle to use in the dark is an evolutionary advantage over the plain bicycle.

Adding a generator to the system is a further improvement that is selected for as it extends the operation of the light. (I used to have a bike with a generator built into the front hub for a most efficient system).

Increasing the size of the battery now enables me to use the generator as a motor to assist in peddling in the tough hills, but generate electricity to store in the battery when the goings are easier, an improvement that allows more or bigger hills to be covered.

Increasing the size of the {generator\motor} and the capacity of the storage battery to give stronger and longer power assist on the hills is also selected as having an advantage over the smaller systems until a compromise in size and weight is reached, at which point stasis sets in for a while.

Then I add a small motor to the generator to assist the generation of electricity, allowing the battery to be smaller and still get the same overall result, plus now I need to pedal less to generate the requisite electricity to use in the hilly areas.

Finally I link the motor directly to the drive mechanism to get around energy lost in the various intermediate stages, and allow the {generator\battery} system to atrophy and fall off. The motor continues to grow and take on more and more of the actual task of propulsion.

No biggy eh?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Trixie, posted 03-27-2005 4:02 PM RAZD has taken no action
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:03 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 88 by Ben!, posted 03-29-2005 4:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 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. :D

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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 03-29-2005 10:04 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 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 taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 157 (195273)
03-29-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Ben!
03-29-2005 4:10 PM


Re: LOL
heh

well 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 ... :D

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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Ben!, posted 03-29-2005 4:10 PM Ben! has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 157 (195565)
03-30-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by gnojek
03-30-2005 12:28 PM


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 enabled

One 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.html

about 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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:28 PM gnojek has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 157 (196768)
04-04-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AdminNosy
04-04-2005 8:42 PM


help for SonClad?
there's also

"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? (click)

looks like SonClad is still finding his way around and may need a little help.

welcome to the fray SonClad! look into all the different forums as there is quite a diversity. There is also a search function, so if you want to talk about a topic you can search for a thread that has already been opened on it.

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 107 by AdminNosy, posted 04-04-2005 8:42 PM AdminNosy has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 157 (252882)
10-18-2005 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by arachnophilia
10-18-2005 8:32 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges for more...apples & oranges
but

you keep putting selection back into the picture while auser_maat keeps trying to ignore it to make his (thereby corrupted) point.

problem is that auser_maat is not discussing evolution but a strawman.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 8:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 11:09 PM RAZD has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 157 (252883)
10-18-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by arachnophilia
10-18-2005 9:18 PM


Re: non-living things DO evolve. sort of. - Design Evolves, and Borrows!
things get borrowed from other designs, too, sort of like convergent evolution. sometimes things are outright stolen -- hybridization and inter-species breeding (like mules/hinnies and tigons/ligers).

More like horizontal transfer of a whole feature so that you cannot reconcile a common ancestory pattern - because there are two or more different ancestors to the design in process.

This is the biggest failing of ID - good design would predict this occurring, fossil & genetic evidence says it doesn't.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 9:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 11:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 157 (253133)
10-19-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by arachnophilia
10-18-2005 11:10 PM


Re: non-living things DO evolve. sort of. - Design Evolves, and Borrows!
i don't think there's outright theft and assimilation in the animal world -- -- now, if we were borg...

And that is the difference between {natural systems adapting to changing environments and incorporating mutations in the process} and what we should see if {ID} were in any evidence.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 11:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 7:28 PM RAZD has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 157 (341321)
08-19-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by obvious Child
08-18-2006 10:48 PM


Re: Distiguishing between Designer and Design Process
and how many other species of beetle?

ps - welcome to the fray


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by obvious Child, posted 08-18-2006 10:48 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by obvious Child, posted 08-19-2006 3:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 157 (341433)
08-19-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by obvious Child
08-19-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Distiguishing between Designer and Design Process
I used to live in Mississippi, down on the coast, and one night I went into the dark kitchen hearing a noise, turned on the light and a 3" roach leap off the counter landed on my stomach and ran down my leg to get away.

The next day I got roach traps. Lots of roach traps. And spread some borax around the edges.
http://www.greenharvest.com.au/pestcontrol/cockroach_info.html

Of course if one were looking for a good survival design ... I don't think humans would make the cut: too much politics and bickering to really get anything done on a useful time-scale that would anticipate problems (global warming as a case in point). {nods towards topic}

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by obvious Child, posted 08-19-2006 3:55 PM obvious Child has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022