IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!

Well an answer could be "yes."To do so one would need to have a community of scholars where what Gould holds out as the internally directed directionality of 19th century ideas of evolution were NOT be argued against simply to establish "constraint" and in example 'developmental constraint' as a new notion able to "channel" (evoltutionary) changes but that artifical rather than natural selection be developed as the cause of any directionality (thus to the niche or B as a species(sic!))where the directionality is an external purposiveness of the artifically selected bike manifold in the internal dependence of man on the tissue of other life.What would happen to evolutionary theory in case of this, is that where discontinuity is presently being written, continuity would arise (where "emergent" characters were asserted), and the discontinuity would be returned socially and then culturally to the unconditioned approach to supernaturalism rather than having personal identity of religious experiences as in current writings.Directionaltiy IN NATURE is due to natural selection not variation (as is standard)but in the bike factory or the creationist striving for an independent view than the secular hereditary king evolutionary change is sustainable within anthropological changes from A to B.

I have expressed my own doubts about IC on evC but I also have doubts evolutionarily about Williams non-material hierarchy. If however one had no interest in ID or Creationism and one tried to insist with Williams's group the parts of the "bike" may non-material in the same obscure sense that IC is claimed no matter said motorcycle.

quote:

---

I'm glad to see that you focused on the heart of my post and am

---

Be careful I am not giving you the whole ro}w{bot for free. There is an “ecological moment” being passed during consideration of the topic in this thread whether it holds up the belt loop or is the engine belt itself.

quote:

---

I'm a little confused though about your reference to Williams' work. Would that be Venus or Serena?

---

I will address this if you are especially interested. “Williams” refers of course to the man George C., that developed an important position on biotic adaptability 1966 under title of “Adaptation and Natural Selection.”The search plan that any robot would have preprogrammed however is not one in IT but rather as per an earlier entry of mine in this thread via a NICHE (not necessarily a genus of thought of tricycles or twoseaterbicycles, or Fords etc.) as( in)

quote:

---

”because the niche-constructing acts of organisms must be selected in advance of their expression, it follows that the niche-constructing activities of organisms must either suffice, for example because they arose for other reasons, or be oriented a priori toward targeted future outcomes or organism-environment interactions on the basis of at least rudimentary and semantically informed search plans.”

---

quote:

---

(bold/ital- combo added) page 177 “Niche Construction” by Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman 2003

---

This plan only inflates the cost of doing macrothermodyanics it does not inhibit or prohibit it. The niche construction authors mis-use Maxwell’s “demon” in general but not in particular.Edited by Brad McFall, : typo