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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
[...] 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.
[...] 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.
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.
"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
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)
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.