Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:02 AM
22 online now:
NosyNed (AdminNosy), PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 76 of 157 (195159)
03-29-2005 9:36 AM


If I can speak in general terms, 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. If you dislike debating someone who seems to begin every discussion from a state of near total amnesia and needs everything explained from scratch again and again, then don't debate with him/her.

It isn't possible to make objective assessments of adherence to the Forum Guidelines in the same way as NFL referees make calls on the field. NFL rules never take intent into account. I wish we could formulate Forum Guidelines that did the same thing so that moderators could always make objective decisions. Here at EvC Forum I think honestly doing the best you can, no matter how frustrating and unfair that may seem to others, counts for something. There is a threshold of competence, of course, which is why WillowTree is no longer here, and even assessing whether that threshold is met is subjective, but I don't think suspensions or even admonitions are called for yet in this discussion.

Sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps another moderator will have some better insights.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 3:21 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 157 (195162)
03-29-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
03-27-2005 9:24 PM


Re: LOL
One thing I particularly enjoyed about your project was that the final product directly reflected what we see in nature. It was not an optimal design, or even an intellegent design. Rather it resulted in "Just good enough" evolved stages.

This is exactly what we do see everywhere in nature. We don't have padding on our shins. We do have parts left over. We don't end up with the very best design.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2005 9:24 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 157 (195164)
03-29-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
03-29-2005 6:56 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
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.

You're obfuscating my argument, Parasomnium.
Regardless of what degree of perfection an intelligent designer has in the beginning, both God and humans are intelligent designers.
The debate is whether intelligent design brought the things we are observing in the universe and our world to be or whether they came to be without intelligent design by natural and random processes.
Razd is a an intelligent being who designs what is observed in his product. Neither the original nor the changes came about by natural and random processes, or what is known as RM/NS. That intelligent design did it is my argument. It is not about the designer, perse, as your obfuscating post inferrs.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 6:56 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 10:36 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 80 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 10:38 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 81 by arachnophilia, posted 03-29-2005 10:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 157 (195165)
03-29-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
03-29-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
quote:
Neither the original nor the changes came about by natural and random processes, or what is known as RM/NS. That intelligent design did it is my argument. It is not about the designer, perse, as your obfuscating post inferrs.

What if I could show you that RM + NS HAS, in fact, resulted in changes to species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 10:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 157 (195166)
03-29-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
03-29-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
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.

(Second bump for this message)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 10:32 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 11:08 AM nator has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 81 of 157 (195171)
03-29-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
03-29-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
Regardless of what degree of perfection an intelligent designer has in the beginning, both God and humans are intelligent designers.

yes, and god should be a BETTER designer than humans.

The debate is whether intelligent design brought the things we are observing in the universe and our world to be or whether they came to be without intelligent design by natural and random processes.

well, yes. but bicycles don't reproduce sexually, do they?

although the human design process is close to evolution, actually. because almost nobody ever makes anything from complete scratch. all inventions and improvements are made from existing parts, and usually based on previous designs.

you'll also find something similar to common ancestry. the electric guitar and violin are probably just variations on a mandolin type instrument. a harley davidson, crotch rocket, and moped are all basically motorized bicycles, and they probably all share some elements with even a tour-de-france type bike. this is because different people make different variations on the same theme different ways.

but with technology, the selection and creation process is us. do we like it? will we pay for it? how much money something makes determines how many get made, including variations. with animals, the selection and reproduction process is sexual. is the animal attractive to the other gender? does it do well enough to survive? how long it lives and how many mates it gets determine how many get made, including variations.

see how that kind of removes the intelligent human design from it?

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-29-2005 11:00 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 10:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 157 (195174)
03-29-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
03-29-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
Cool it, Schraf. I'll get to you when I get to you. Amins Moose and Percy often advise that it's ok to slow down, take time and post at one's pace. I'm doing some research on this random/ns bit. I'm not done by a long shot here yet. First though, you people again have come at me so as for the need to defend my character, and that galls me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 10:38 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by CK, posted 03-29-2005 11:31 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 84 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 1:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2207 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 83 of 157 (195176)
03-29-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
03-29-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
This is sorted very very simply - regardless of your views on the TOE - you accept that the theory as currently presented contains both randomness and selection?

All this requires is a simple yes. If you forget in the future - people can link you here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 11:08 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2005 10:05 AM CK has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 157 (195206)
03-29-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
03-29-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Intelligent? Not really.
quote:
Cool it, Schraf. I'll get to you when I get to you. Amins Moose and Percy often advise that it's ok to slow down, take time and post at one's pace.

Of course.

But, as the message was put up over 40 posts ago, I didn't want it to be missed.

quote:
I'm doing some research on this random/ns bit. I'm not done by a long shot here yet.

Excellent.

I look forward to your reply regarding the fact that the ToE does not require Abiogenesis.

quote:
First though, you people again have come at me so as for the need to defend my character, and that galls me.

I'm sure it does gall you, but you have no one to blame but yourself.

You SAID that you were aware of natural selection being a key part of evolution, along with random mutation, after being pressed on why you chronically leave it out in your descriptions of Evolution.

You were warned that if you brought up randomness without including selection that you would be considered dishonest in the debate.

You chose all by your lonesome to do just that, so you've made your own bed here, hon, I'm sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2005 11:08 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 85 of 157 (195233)
03-29-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Admin
03-29-2005 9:36 AM


Thanks for your comments, Percy.
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:
If you dislike debating someone who seems to begin every discussion from a state of near total amnesia and needs everything explained from scratch again and again, then don't debate with him/her.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 03-29-2005 9:36 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2005 3:49 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 157 (195236)
03-29-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Parasomnium
03-29-2005 3:21 PM


Re: Thanks for your comments, Percy.
In the meantime, I am returning the megaphone to Dan. He's much funnier with it than I could ever hope to be.

Don't blame yourself. It's a tool which requires cunning, subtlety, timing, and an encyclopedic knowledge of profanity.

Give it time. You'll learn.


"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 3:21 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 4:08 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 87 of 157 (195238)
03-29-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dan Carroll
03-29-2005 3:49 PM


Re: Thanks for your comments, Percy.
Did I say "much funnier with it"? Scratch that. He's much, much funnier even without it!

(Dan? Never, ever stop, OK?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2005 3:49 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2005 4:46 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 88 of 157 (195240)
03-29-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
03-27-2005 3:55 PM


Re: LOL
Hi RAZD,

I hate to criticize when I know you're half-joking, but, to me there's two errors here that we often accuse people of misunderstanding about evolution. So, I think it's important to avoid the errors, even when we're joking around.

First, your bike is being modified in ways that is not incremental at all--you have "full features" (i.e. a battery-powered light, generator, etc). This is EXACTLY analagous to the mistake that creationists sometimes make, expecting a feature such as an EYE or LIMB to appear suddenly, not incrementally. This leads them to the conclusion that "the probability of all mutations necessary to make the change would be too low for them to actually occur simultaneously" which we then HAMMER them for. It has to be incremental.

Second, your "selection" is not based on natural pressures, but instead what you view to be "good." Of course, this mistake happens all the time--people think that evolution must mean "improvement." But all it means is change due to "selective pressure." You have selection, but no selective pressure.


I actually think this exercise is interesting too. But I was thinking of something more along these lines:

- adding features which are incremental extensions / modifications of existing features, incorporating things "endogenous" in the environment around the bike.

- using "selective pressures" as I see fit (in other words, I can choose whatever 'environment' I want, because it's just a stupid exercise)


For example,

1. The 'environment' where motorcycles evolved from bikes involves an interesting history. At first, in this environment, bikes were only used to travel downhill. Once downhill, people used other machines to drag their bikes (and the water & food that they gathered in the river in the valley) back up the mountain.

1. Bikes with bulky masses around the petal area (extension of an existing feature) become selected for, as lighter bikes proved to be less stable and more susceptabe to friction. People tended to select bikes which didn't crash as easily and went faster.

2. (The bulky mass evolves moving parts to provide a more comfortable ride [this can be done incrementally; still working on a bit of this]) People tended to select bikes which had comfortable rides.

And on like this. Gas can be added due to environmental considerations (maybe the people struck oil at the top fo their mountain, and started bringing it downhill to ship it, or maybe the people living at the river because super-in love with mountaineer's fresh tempura (fried food), and so that turned into people cooking tempura while riding bikes, etc), just like anything else. By the way, I think it would be fun to develop a more incremental version of bike->motorcycle together (talking about everybody) here.


Anyway. Didn't want to "rain on your parade" or anything, and I know it's just a joke, but I really think it's important to follow our own points, even within jokes. And since I've found you to be a really strong, knowledgeable poster here, I'm pretty sure you can appreciate that.

Peace man.
Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2005 3:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2005 5:47 PM Ben! has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 157 (195252)
03-29-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Parasomnium
03-29-2005 4:08 PM


Re: Thanks for your comments, Percy.
Word.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Parasomnium, posted 03-29-2005 4:08 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-29-2005 4:52 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 90 of 157 (195255)
03-29-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dan Carroll
03-29-2005 4:46 PM


To Dan and Parasomnium
OK you two - Get a room in another motel.

AM

{Edited to change subtitle}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-29-2005 04:57 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2005 4:46 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019