[Just a few more shopping days until this contest closes!]
Biological evolution is supposed to describe a gradual process that can produce marvelous adapations from simple precursors (e.g., the mammalian eye from a light-sensitive spot). But what about technological evolution? In the history of human technology, what is the longest chain of gradual changes that transforms one system into another.
I’m not talking about hypothetical histories in which it is imagined how some final piece of technology might gradually have evolved from simpler precursors (for such a bogus hypothetical history, consider John H. McDonald’s evolving mousetrap: go here — McDonald is responding to Behe’s use of the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity).
I’m talking about an actual history of invention in which an initial technology does A, and then a small change allows it to do B, after which a further small change allows it to do C, after which co-opting an existing system (without extensive modification) allows it to do D, etc. The evolution of a motorcycle from a motor and a bicycle is not a good example in this regard because the motor and bicycle require extensive design-work to adapt them to each other.
Thus, I’m looking for
1. An actual case study from the history of human invention.
2. At least five steps in the specific case of technological evolution being proposed.
3. Each of the steps must be gradual in the sense that no extensive change of the immediately succeeding system(s) was required (in the case of co-option, no extensive retooling or adaptation of parts was required).
4. At least five contestants.
5. Example of technological evolution must be submitted as comment to this (
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/341 )blog entry by December 1, 2005. (Note that a simple link to another webpage is sufficient.)
If these conditions are satisfied, I’ll award a prize of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 (the amount will depend on how interesting I find the winning sequence). Note that I am the sole judge.
( William A. Dembski )
Onko joku ottanu osaa kisaan keksimällä jonkun hyvän esimerkin?
Biological evolution is supposed to describe a gradual process that can produce marvelous adapations from simple precursors (e.g., the mammalian eye from a light-sensitive spot). But what about technological evolution? In the history of human technology, what is the longest chain of gradual changes that transforms one system into another.
I’m not talking about hypothetical histories in which it is imagined how some final piece of technology might gradually have evolved from simpler precursors (for such a bogus hypothetical history, consider John H. McDonald’s evolving mousetrap: go here — McDonald is responding to Behe’s use of the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity).
I’m talking about an actual history of invention in which an initial technology does A, and then a small change allows it to do B, after which a further small change allows it to do C, after which co-opting an existing system (without extensive modification) allows it to do D, etc. The evolution of a motorcycle from a motor and a bicycle is not a good example in this regard because the motor and bicycle require extensive design-work to adapt them to each other.
Thus, I’m looking for
1. An actual case study from the history of human invention.
2. At least five steps in the specific case of technological evolution being proposed.
3. Each of the steps must be gradual in the sense that no extensive change of the immediately succeeding system(s) was required (in the case of co-option, no extensive retooling or adaptation of parts was required).
4. At least five contestants.
5. Example of technological evolution must be submitted as comment to this (
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/341 )blog entry by December 1, 2005. (Note that a simple link to another webpage is sufficient.)
If these conditions are satisfied, I’ll award a prize of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 (the amount will depend on how interesting I find the winning sequence). Note that I am the sole judge.
( William A. Dembski )
Onko joku ottanu osaa kisaan keksimällä jonkun hyvän esimerkin?
Vastaukset 3
Vanhimmat
http://www.geocities.com/normdoer/EvoInvent1.htm
Otapa selvää arpanetin historiasta.
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/19990913_explaining_csi.html
"Does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? This is the million dollar
question. Michael Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is purported to be a case of actual specified complexity and to be exhibited in real
biochemical systems (cf. his book Darwin's Black Box). If such systems are, as Behe claims, highly improbable and thus genuinely complex with respect to the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection and if they
are specified in virtue of their highly specific function (Behe looks to such systems as the bacterial flagellum), then a door is reopened for
design in science that has been closed for well over a century. Does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? The jury is still out."