It is an engine that combines the characteristics of the two types of engine. it only has one fuel type and one controlling electric.
Yes there is. You need two types of fuel and electrics!
Why can you not understand? Diesel deos not spark ignite, it works on compression and a heated coil. There is no spark. The electrics do not marry or relate. They are literally alien to each other.
I have not full looked at this new Mec engine but suffice it to say it will be one integrated system not two disparate ones.
This is so basic practicalities I am amazed that you cannot see any of it. Your theoretical knowledge fails to manifest practically.
Richard
Edit,
even if there are vehicls with two engines, they were designed as such. The baodywork is built to accomodate the two engines. There is room for them Neither is redundant or replacement. You have missed the whole point with all your āCleverā answers! They are not cllever at all. They demonstrate a lack of understanding.
You need to realise that the whole point of IC from the start was to dispute the ability to create anything (everything) incrementally. The fact that it has all got too technical and speiific does not change that. Evolution is not about taking parts away or devolution, it is about evolving and changing beneficially.
The point about ICs is that they are a selfcontained unit with many integral and interconnecting parts that need to be assembled before it works. It is the assemblly that matters, not the disassembly (No 5 not going to be disassembled!) If you are going to ignore the assembly factor of evolution you are taking the roots from under it.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
125
Then what do the letters I and C represent if the argument is meant for everything? I think it would also be pretty easy to come up with many examples in the fossil record of features evolving incrementally.
So now we are talking about embryonic development? Or in the case of prokaryotes, the self assembly of multi-component systems like the bacterial flagella? The flagellum assembles all on its own over time, so does that violate your claims about IC?
Forget it1 You are just on one of your fantasy trips
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
127
It seems rather odd that you claim certain structures canāt evolve, but when asked about them you canāt describe them in any coherent manner. All of the sudden irreducible isnāt irreducible any more, or is it? Instead of evolutionary pathways you now want to talk about how they are assembled, and even then you canāt say anything about how they are assembled as it relates to IC or evolution. You even say that IC is an argument that nothing can evolve incrementally. The whole thing sounds like you are randomly choosing stuff and deciding, for no apparent reason, that it canāt evolve.
Well, that didnāt really answer my question, so letās try another way more concretely.
I did a quick implementation of what you described. Start with the word āantā, apply the various mutation operators with some probability (capping the size at 5 words), then either toss if the result includes any strings not in English or add to a library of āgenomes.ā Then repeat, drawing genomes randomly from the library. Understandably, OED and Merriam-Webster donāt make convenient electronic word lists available, so I used the words-alpha list from here.
After 2^{20} iterations, I had discovered 14,322 unique words out of 370,105 (4%). Here is how they accumulated over time.
Stills seems to be in a linear phase when I quit, so Iād expect it will keep discovering new words for at least a while more. Presumably there are words which cannot be reached via this process; after all, the operations donāt really reflect how English words are constructed. But we know that there is a route to antidisestablishmentarianism, so even though it was not one of the words discovered so far, in principle it is reachable.
Is the question then how long it will take? I could keep going to try to find the answer, but Iām not sure what that would tell us. And besides the length, is there anything particularly interesting about antidisestablishmentarianism relative to the 14,322 words already found?
And if the interest is in incremental routes to irreducibility, this model excludes a known route which I explored in the other simulation I mentioned and which is biologically relevant: take a functional system, add a component that does not alter the function, then remove any elements from the original system that are redundant to the added component.
