What is wrong with modern science?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@RichardG

I am pretty sure there are no wheels in a bird

There are many… many cyclical processes which drive the flight of the bird.

@RichardG

The point is not whether we can simulate, but how complicated the motion is

So your excuse is now that the artificial bird is more simple, doing the same thing with less complexity? LOL!

Is your next example the convoluted path of your own thinking which no rational evolutionary process could possibly produce?

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

It’s quite impressive, until you look inside. There are wheels that produce the circular motion. . I am pretty sure there are no wheels in a bird, just muscles working in unisn.
IOW it gets the motion but it is still a simulation…As the landing, (or not) proved it still needs feathers for fine tuning, let alone being able to fold away.

Moving the goalposts. You said “try building two wings with the correct flapping, flying motion”. It’s been done.
That was the hard part; adding feathers and altering the wings to fold away is trivial engineering in comparison – and the second robo-bird had a good start on the feathers.

@RichardG

And scientists still claim that complexity is a myth

No, they say that irreducible complexity, i.e. systems that had to arrive full-fledged, doesn’t exist. And so far nothing has been found that can’t be shown in a computer simulation to have been possible to happen incrementally.
And scientists would be delighted to find one – it would get their names into the history books at the very least, bring more grant money, gain international recognition.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@mitchellmckain

So your excuse is now that the artificial bird is more simple, doing the same thing with less complexity?

Have you looked at it?

The motion is complex but the method of achieving it is not. And the wings themselves are flexible but a single structure. There is no equivalent for the feathers. There is one controlling motion not individual pairs of muscles. So, yes, it is comparatively simple. (Not laughing)

@mitchellmckain

Is your next example the convoluted path of your own thinking which no rational evolutionary process could possibly produce?

I only need one. And there are probably thousands.

Again, your flippancy does you no credit. You are missing the point.

@St.Roymond

Moving the goalposts. You said “try building two wings with the correct flapping, flying motion”. It’s been done.

No it hasn’t
Do you know the difference between a simulation and a reproduction?

The model dos not reproduce the exact method of flying. It just simulates it.

@St.Roymond

they say that irreducible complexity, i.e. systems that had to arrive full-fledged, doesn’t exist

And that is blinkered ignorance.

But, as I said before, I cannot prove to you what you will not see or understand.

@St.Roymond

And scientists would be delighted to find one – it would get their names into the history books at the very least, bring more grant money, gain international recognition

Yeah, good luck with that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Richard

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@RichardG

I only need one.

To prove what??? That in this ONE example we cannot reproduce what is found in nature?

We already have examples of designs produced by evolutionary algorithms which we could not make ourselves.

So all that proves is evolution can do things which we cannot. We already know that.

You hold out for some evidence you imagine will support the Deist watchmaker god, while all the evidence in example after example continues to support the claim that all living species are a product of evolution. And your idea that this somehow excludes God is disproved by the simple fact that we who support evolution 100% still believe in the God of the Bible who rather than design simply interacts with life as He does with us, as a shepherd/teacher with corrective actions instead.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

Moving the goalposts. You said “try building two wings with the correct flapping, flying motion”. It’s been done.

No it hasn’t
Do you know the difference between a simulation and a reproduction?

Moving the goalposts again. They built “two wings with the correct flapping, flying motion”.

@RichardG

The model dos not reproduce the exact method of flying. It just simulates it.

That’s their next step. But they’ve done the hard part, getting the wing motion that lets it fly.

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

they say that irreducible complexity, i.e. systems that had to arrive full-fledged, doesn’t exist

And that is blinkered ignorance.

No, it’s the application of analysis to the data we have.

@RichardG

But, as I said before, I cannot prove to you what you will not see or understand.

You can’t prove to me anything since you only have a pre-middle-school grasp of biology, which isn’t enough for you to have the first clue about the systems you’re claiming knowledge about.

@RichardG

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are none so foolish as those who think they are experts when they are but dabblers.

[St.Roymond]

@mitchellmckain

We already have examples of designs produced by evolutionary algorithms which we could not make ourselves.

So all that proves is evolution can do things which we cannot. We already know that.

I can’t find the car frame images I’m looking for but I found a bicycle that’s somewhat similar–

I’m thinking of an article in Discover magazine some years back about an engineer who used some evolutionary software to get a frame design for a car, and instead of the blocky look human-designed car frames have it was sort of lacy elements like the bicycle above. Using standard engineering software he put it through all the regular tests and it turned out to be something like 15% stronger while 20% lighter than any existing design. The article closed with a paragraph saying such designs were beyond the ability of manufacturers to actually produce at the time, but hoped for great things in the future.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@St.Roymond

There are none so foolish as those who think they are experts when they are but dabblers.

He isn’t a dabbler. He’s in the wrong pool.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are none so foolish as those who think they are experts when they are but dabblers.

I have never claimed to be an expert.

But I am getting bored.

@St.Roymond

You can’t prove to me anything

With such an attitude I am wasting my time.

Because, you do not even consider what I say you just dismiss it.

Fair enough. Stay on your high horse(s). Nothing changes.

Some people do not know how to discuss. They only kow how argue or try and teach.

Vanity, vanity

I will bow out here.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Because, you do not even consider what I say you just dismiss it.

False. I consider it all, but so far you haven’t shown more than a pre-middle-school comprehension of the subject matter – and without that you’re not going to prov anything to anyone because it makes it plain that you have no idea what you’re talking about.