Staying up until 3am does have its upsides. I stumbled upon an excellent NOVA episode in the wee hours of Sunday morning called "Building on Ground Zero". The program went through both the ASCE and NIST investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2). Both reports came to similar conclusions (impact and explosion of airplane coupled with weakening of steel trusses by fire brought the Twin Towers down), but attributed different mechanisms (pancake floor collapse as opposed to truss connection pulling columns inward causing fracture).
"Building on Ground Zero also focused on a design feature used frequently by structural engineers called redundancy. In structural engineering, redundancy generally means multiple load paths. The ultimate goal of a structural engineer is to safely transmit the loads to the ground. This is usually done by focusing on a primary load path. But what happens when the primary load path is compromised? If the load cannot safely get to the ground, then the equilibrium of the structure is shot and collapse (in part or in whole) occurs. If a structure is said to be redundant, then there are multiple loads paths. Redundancy is also a means to prevent progressive collapse where the failure of a single member causes the failure or collapse of the structure (in part or as a whole). In part, it was the redundancy of Twin Towers' structural design that allowed them to remain standing despite multiple columns being severed, thus allowing several hundred occupants the ability to escape.
So can redundancy in a natural object point towards design? Possibly. Taking the Mike Gene approach, let's grant that a redundant feature in a natural object is possibly the outcome of a purposeful design. In order to progress to plausibility, I propose one of the things that needs to be looked at is the context of the redundancy (i.e. does the redundancy serve a purpose?). Redundancy without meaning or context points more towards a "Myopic Tinkerer" than a "Rational Engineer".
However, there is an interesting flip side to this: I don't believe the designer of WTC1 and 2 intentionally incorporated redundancy for the events of 9/11.* This would mean that redundancy was an accidental outcome rather than purposely used for the case that several columns at a certain point would be missing. So where does this fit in to the "design paradigm" and it is possible to even know if the redundancy was purposely designed or not?
The asylum is now open. Let the comments commence!
*The tubular structure of WTC1 and 2 were designed to resist wind and earthquake loads, as well as the impact of a Boeing 707. I don't believe that the impact studies looked at the possibility that the 707 would take out several columns at a certain elevation, but I could be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
JJS,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever looked at youtube photos of the collapse of building #7? And have you seen the interview of the Dutch controlled demolitions expert who said that #7 was a controlled demolition?
I realize this wasn't the direction you wanted to go in, but I had to take advantage of the situation. Sorry.
Back to the topic: You ask, "So where does this fit in to the "design paradigm" and it is possible to even know if the redundancy was purposely designed or not?"
It does make it more difficult to know. I think we would need to go back to Mike's categories: Discontinuity: What evidence is there that the redundancy evolved from earlier states, as opposed to being an original design? Analogy: How much does the redundancy resemble our purposefully designed redundancy. How much does it resemble our unintended redundancies? Rationality: How much sense does it make to design the redundancy this way as opposed to another way? Foresight: Does it look like the designer was anticipating likely futures? Or is this an unlikely occurrence, where the redundancy just happened to help out?
I found the name of the Dutch controlled demolitions expert: Danny Jowenko.
ReplyDeletejjs - So can redundancy in a natural object point towards design? Possibly. Taking the Mike Gene approach, let's grant that a redundant feature in a natural object is possibly the outcome of a purposeful design.
ReplyDeleteSigh. Redundancy is also almost an inevitable outcome of evolution as we currently understand it, given that many structures and pathways appear to have arisen by duplication and co-option.
So I won't grant that redundancy is a hallmark of purposeful design (nor would anyone else who has studied genomes or metabolic pathways in living organisms).
Instead, why don't you guys try to figure out how to define "good design" and not use the "I'll know it when I see it" approach that served Bilbo so poorly in this recent comment thread?
Biology isn't engineering, nor is it computer programming, nor is it information theory. It's a unique beast, and even though all of these disciplines might have something to offer to the study of biology, it will still be important to actually know something about the biology before you can usefully extrapolate your knowledge from these other disciplines. Sorry if that goes against the grain here, but, as that linked comment thread so clearly demonstrates, you have to know a little bit about biology before you can discuss it intelligently.
Reliability is less important in nature than in human structures because what counts in nature is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals.
ReplyDeleteLarry opined: Reliability is less important in nature than in human structures because what counts in nature is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals.
ReplyDeleteLarry, can you explain how a species survives if the individuals die out? Can you explain how redundancy (or any heritable trait, really) which aids in the survival of an individual would not aid in survival of a species?
And can you do it without insults, for a change?
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>> Larry, can you explain how a species survives if the individuals die out? <<<<<<
I never said or implied anything about all the individuals of a species dying out -- you are putting words in my mouth. My point is that in human society, every life is considered precious (at least in theory), so great pains are taken to assure high reliability in engineered structures where human safety is at stake. However, in non-human organisms, what is important -- at least so far as we are concerned -- is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals, and there are ways of compensating for high safety risks to individuals -- one such compensation is a high rate of reproduction. Levels of safety risk that are considered trivial in nature are completely unacceptable in human society. For example, there may be, say, one chance in a thousand that an ignition system in an airplane will fail in flight. In nature, that level of risk is considered trivial, but among humans, that level of risk is considered to be unacceptable, so redundant ignition systems are used.
>>>>> And can you do it without insults, for a change? <<<<<<
My insults are usually in response to insults or ad hominem attacks from others.
Larry whined: I never said or implied anything about all the individuals of a species dying out
ReplyDeleteNo, you didn't. I didn't realize that you had to specifically state something before I was allowed to think about it. That seems a tad restrictive.
I was asking about the logical ramifications of your assertion - Reliability is less important in nature than in human structures because what counts in nature is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow that logic, but if I have to explain it to you, I suspect that this conversation is doomed from the start. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try.
Your statement implies that individuals without redundant pathways or structures would be OK as long as the population of their species didn't die out (species survival is more important than individual survival, in your words). But this is illogical; individuals have to survive in order for the species to survive. Traits (like redundant pathways or structures) that enhance individual survival will likewise enhance species survival. They are inextricably linked, not independent.
Hope this helps.
As for this statement - My insults are usually in response to insults or ad hominem attacks from others
I can only say that is not my experience. A recent example is here, on WW's blog, where you jump into a conversation between myself and WW, where no insults had been directed your way, to write this (insults directed at me are in bold).
Typical Stalinist debate trope from a stereo-typical elitist snob. You highlighted “less experience”, and Wallace compared experience to ability, you low life.
Keep on playing the snob “not enough experience” card, you lousy Marxist. It should play as well as the “clinging to guns and religion” comments made by the neo-marxist political jesus you worship, B.H. Obama.
Three sentences, five insults. All gratuitous, since I had not even mentioned you in that thread. Per usual, the facts are at odds with your assertions.
So many comments to respond to, so little time ;)
ReplyDeleteBilbo, I have not seen the interview in question, but I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that WTC7 was purposely demolished. The collapse of WTC7 may have looked like a designed building demolition, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Keep in mind, the majority of debris from WTC1 and 2 was within a small area/footprint (to the best of my knowledge). I've heard of concrete shrapnel reaching as far as Jersey, but that makes sense if you factor in the amount of potential energy locked into the towers before collapse. Bottom line: I've seen these conspiracy theories and I don't think much of them.
Dave:
"Biology isn't engineering, nor is it computer programming, nor is it information theory. It's a unique beast, and even though all of these disciplines might have something to offer to the study of biology, it will still be important to actually know something about the biology before you can usefully extrapolate your knowledge from these other disciplines. Sorry if that goes against the grain here, but, as that linked comment thread so clearly demonstrates, you have to know a little bit about biology before you can discuss it intelligently."
The same could be said about the different disciplines of engineering. Each is unique yet shares basic engineering principles, which is why engineering students wait until the second or third year (of four) until they are able to choose a discipline.
The engineering analogies in biology are evident, as Mike Gene so nicely described in The Design Matrix. Biological structures seem to mimic manmade engineered structures (or is it vice-versa?). Engineers do have a place in this debate: the biological structures have to work (i.e. allow certain movements, resist forces, propel structures, etc.).
That is not to say there are no differences. One of the main differences is size. The forces that dominate at the molecular level could be different than those at the "human" level (for lack of a better term). At the "human" level, Newtonian gravitational forces dominate. At the molecular, it could be a variety of forces that dominate (strong nuclear, chemical bonds, electromagnetic, etc.)
IMHO, these are worth looking into, and an engineer can contribute.
jjs
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that engineers can contribute. I hope you also agree that analogies can be misleading, and that analogies based on inadequate knowledge of the material can be worse than misleading.
Engineers, mathematicians, physicists and folks in lots of other disciplines have all made major contributions to biological research, and will continue to do so. But just like I would probably not add major insights to any of those fields without some serious background study in those areas, I hope you can understand that making a contribution to biological research will require knowing quite a lot about biology.
If folks want to make that committment, fine. If they don't (and based on that thread linked in my previous comment, Bilbo has not), they should just be quiet and avoid embarassing themselves...
I missed the Nova program.
ReplyDeleteBut, is redundancy necessary or sufficient to prove design.
No. Some engineers optimize for cost, and toss redundancy to the wind. For example see 1/2 inch gusset plates on a certain bridge that no longer exists.
If it's not even necessary, it is clearly not sufficient.
But redundancy is certainly evidence of design, and quite good evidence, in my opinion..
"Larry, can you explain how a species survives if the individuals die out?"
ReplyDeleteIn the context of your question, redundancy would be your answer. Some individuals dieing out would be okay if the species were to survive.
That is, individuals in a species are, almost self evidently, redundant.
Larry has a good point, when he observed, "Reliability is less important in nature than in human structures because what counts in nature is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals."
A species made up of fragile individuals can still survive, and even thrive, at least hypothetically.
Consider, China. We might be better able to kill Chinese on the battlefield with conventional weapons, but in a war, if they simply surrender 1,000,000 soldiers per day, they would defeat us
Dave said (09 September, 2008 14:06) --
ReplyDelete>>>>> Traits (like redundant pathways or structures) that enhance individual survival will likewise enhance species survival. <<<<<<
But that might be unimportant compared to other factors that help the species to survive, e.g., a high rate of reproduction. As I said, where human safety is concerned, we require extremely high reliability because each human life is considered to be very important -- that's the difference. Of course, we generally don't want to see other species become extinct (with some exceptions -- for example, we have caused the near extinction of smallpox), but we tolerate much higher safety risks to individuals in other species than we tolerate in safety risks to humans.
>>>>>> A recent example is here, on WW's blog, where you jump into a conversation between myself and WW, where no insults had been directed your way, to write this (insults directed at me are in bold). <<<<<
Those insults were written by another Larry, not by me. I don't know why you assumed that those insults were from me just because they were posted under the name Larry.
William Wallace said (09 September, 2008 23:05) --
>>>>>>>"Larry, can you explain how a species survives if the individuals die out?"
In the context of your question, redundancy would be your answer. Some individuals dieing out would be okay if the species were to survive.
That is, individuals in a species are, almost self evidently, redundant. <<<<<<<
Yes -- the "redundancy" could be in the form of more individuals instead of high reliability per individual.
>>>>>> Larry has a good point, when he observed, "Reliability is less important in nature than in human structures because what counts in nature is the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals."
A species made up of fragile individuals can still survive, and even thrive, at least hypothetically. <<<<<<
Thanks for your supporting statements, WW.
Larry - Those insults were written by another Larry, not by me. I don't know why you assumed that those insults were from me just because they were posted under the name Larry.
ReplyDeleteBecause they sound just like you. On this blog. On this comment thread. Maybe it was your brother, impersonating you again.
Both you and WW make my point for me. Redundancy, whether within the organism or at the level of multiple organisms in a species, is beneficial for survival of the species. Even redundant redundancy is good, if you can get away with it.
But this paragraph is pretty amusing, Larry.
But that might be unimportant compared to other factors that help the species to survive, e.g., a high rate of reproduction. As I said, where human safety is concerned, we require extremely high reliability because each human life is considered to be very important -- that's the difference. Of course, we generally don't want to see other species become extinct (with some exceptions -- for example, we have caused the near extinction of smallpox), but we tolerate much higher safety risks to individuals in other species than we tolerate in safety risks to humans.
Gee, do you think that tolerance of higher safety risks to other species besides humans might be because we are humans? Do you think that other organisms see things the same way? Do you understand how this paragraph demonstrates two things, the inappropriate application of human values to the rest of the biological world, and an anthropocentric bias that allows most creationists to ignore the rest of the biological world simply because they assume humans are the crown of creation?
Oh, and BTW, humans are responsible for the extinction of a lot more species than just the smallpox virus...
>>>>>> Because they sound just like you. On this blog. On this comment thread. Maybe it was your brother, impersonating you again. <<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who is making unprovoked ad hominem attacks, gossiping and insults here -- that's a sure sign of desperation, that you have no good arguments to make. Tell me, bozo, why I should respond to your comments here when you are making unprovoked attacks on me.
>>>>>> Gee, do you think that tolerance of higher safety risks to other species besides humans might be because we are humans? <<<<<<<
That was my point -- you are finally getting it. Duh.
>>>>> Do you think that other organisms see things the same way? <<<<<<<
"See things the same way"? Can an amoeba see things in any way?
>>>>>>> Do you understand how this paragraph demonstrates two things, the inappropriate application of human values to the rest of the biological world, and an anthropocentric bias that allows most creationists to ignore the rest of the biological world simply because they assume humans are the crown of creation? <<<<<<
I was not applying human values to the rest of the biological world -- in fact, I did the opposite. I said that we require high reliability in engineered systems where human safety is concerned, but high reliability is not required in the natural world because the redundancy produced by a high reproductive rate in a species can compensate for comparatively low reliability in individuals of that species. WW got this point and you did not.
>>>>>> Oh, and BTW, humans are responsible for the extinction of a lot more species than just the smallpox virus... <<<<<<
I never said otherwise, but unlike the near-extinction of smallpox, most of those other extinctions are not purposeful.
Larry - You are the one who is making unprovoked ad hominem attacks, gossiping and insults here -- that's a sure sign of desperation, that you have no good arguments to make. Tell me, bozo, why I should respond to your comments here when you are making unprovoked attacks on me.
ReplyDeleteAll false, and accompanied, per usual by an insult (in bold above). Show me an ad hominem argument that I made here. And linking to Brayton's takedown of your dishonest behavior is not gossiping at all. That is documented misbehavior.
Then there's this - I was not applying human values to the rest of the biological world -- in fact, I did the opposite. I said that we require high reliability in engineered systems where human safety is concerned, but high reliability is not required in the natural world because the redundancy produced by a high reproductive rate in a species can compensate for comparatively low reliability in individuals of that species. WW got this point and you did not.
But reliability is required for all organisms. That's the point. And redundancy, which is found in all organisms that I know about, is a powerful assist in the quest for reliability.
Furthermore, you are applying human values to the natural world. You noted that humans consider each human life to be important. That is not a value shared by any other organism on the planet, but most of them probably consider their individual lives to be important, and the lives of their conspecifics to be important. Our human lives are important to us, of course, but they mean diddly-squat to an oak tree...
Hi JJS,
ReplyDeleteThe NIST ruled out damage from WTC 1 and 2 as a cause for the collapse of WTC 7. You really should look at the interview of Danny Jowenko.
Responses in no particular order...
ReplyDeleteBilbo, I haven't had a chance to see the video yet since YouTube and streaming video are not available at my work station/cubicle/cell. I'll have to read more into the NIST report(s) to learn more, but the controlled demolition theory sounds too far out there for my liking.
>>>>> All false, and accompanied, per usual by an insult (in bold above). Show me an ad hominem argument that I made here. And linking to Brayton's takedown of your dishonest behavior is not gossiping at all. That is documented misbehavior. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what the terms "ad hominem" and "gossip" mean. "Ad hominem" means attacking the person instead of addressing the issues. And all speculation about people's private affairs -- like who their relatives are -- is gossip, whether it is "documented" or not, whether it is true or not. You lousy Darwinists are always making up your own new definitions of terms. That stuff is also off-topic and you are the one who intiated abuse here.
>>>>>>But reliability is required for all organisms. That's the point. And redundancy, which is found in all organisms that I know about, is a powerful assist in the quest for reliability. <<<<<<
If you mean "reliability" to be anything approaching good reliability, then no, reliability is not required for all organisms. If the reproductive rate of a species is high enough, that species can survive even if only one percent of the individuals survive long enough to reproduce.
>>>>>> Furthermore, you are applying human values to the natural world. <<<<<<
No, I am not doing that, and I explained why.
>>>>>>You noted that humans consider each human life to be important. That is not a value shared by any other organism on the planet, but most of them probably consider their individual lives to be important, and the lives of their conspecifics to be important. <<<<<<
That's ridiculous -- you are contradicting yourself, first saying that no other organisms share humans' value of considering each human life to be important, then saying that most organisms consider the lives of their "conspecifics" to be important. Anyway, your latter statement is true of some of the higher animals but is not true of the lower animals and plants.
There is no point in my discussing this further with you, because you are not making any sensible points and meanwhile I am being subjected to a barrage of ad hominem attacks, gossip, and other insults.
Dave:
ReplyDelete"I absolutely agree that engineers can contribute."
Thanks Dave. I think this is a good starting point.
"I hope you also agree that analogies can be misleading, and that analogies based on inadequate knowledge of the material can be worse than misleading."
I am going by memory here since I don't have the book in front of me. Mike Gene dealt with this in The Design Matrix:
1. Analogies on their own aren't sufficient. However, when coupled with a discontinuity, the analogy becomes stronger.
2. It's not just engineers who see this analogy, but biologists (unintentionally) use engineering term to describe the inner workings of the biological world. I believe it was in Chapter 2 that Mike investigated the strong dependence on engineering terms in biology papers (did I get the chapter right, Bilbo?)
From an earlier comment of Dave's:
"Sigh. Redundancy is also almost an inevitable outcome of evolution as we currently understand it."
I never said that redundancy automatically rules out evolution/Blind Watchmaker/Myopic Tinkerer. I'm more interested in the context of the redundant feature, and it would appear that Bilbo is on the right track investigation-wise. I'm just curious in following the rabbit trail wherever it leads.
WW:
ReplyDelete"But, is redundancy necessary or sufficient to prove design.
No. Some engineers optimize for cost..."
I agree that a redundant feature by itself is not enough. Context is required.
Cost, in monetary terms, is not a good analogy due to its subjective nature (what is cost-acceptable to one is not to another). But let me throw this out there: what about cost in terms of energy??? It would seem logical (to me) that natural selection would (generally) filter out organisms/mutations/etc. that are not energy efficient.
Ref blows his whistle!!!
ReplyDeleteDave and Larry, you make me wish I had a penalty box here! ;)
Dave, you're penalised for poking and prodding. Larry, you're penalised for falling for it.
Enough with the insults. Ignoring them, the debate here has been great and civil.
jjs - 2. It's not just engineers who see this analogy, but biologists (unintentionally) use engineering term to describe the inner workings of the biological world. I believe it was in Chapter 2 that Mike investigated the strong dependence on engineering terms in biology papers (did I get the chapter right, Bilbo?)
ReplyDeleteBiologists, despite what I'd like to believe, are fully capable of falling for the seductions of an analogy. That still doesn't make it a good argument. Analogies are basically descriptions that allow us to understand processes that may, or may not, be understandable from our limited human perspectives. They should not be used as arguments, and , from where I sit, the entire ID world is basically an argument from analogy...
Cost, in monetary terms, is not a good analogy due to its subjective nature (what is cost-acceptable to one is not to another). But let me throw this out there: what about cost in terms of energy??? It would seem logical (to me) that natural selection would (generally) filter out organisms/mutations/etc. that are not energy efficient.
As you say, generally, that's true. But in cases where sexual selection is operating, it may not be. All of the finery of a peacock is certainly not energy-efficient. But it does advertise to a peahen that the peacock is in such fabulous shape that he can afford to divert precious resources to make frivolous feathers.
As for the penalty box, point well taken. When it comes to Larry, I just can't help myself. :-)
I should know better, and, per usual, others can explain the problem a lot better than I can.
>>>>> As for the penalty box, point well taken. When it comes to Larry, I just can't help myself. :-)
ReplyDeleteI should know better, and, per usual, others can explain the problem a lot better than I can. <<<<<<
By linking to other blog articles that attack me personally, Dave is still attacking me personally here even after JJS P.Eng. warned him about that.
JJS P.Eng., if you are going to let Dave attack me personally while denying me the right to counterattack, I am going to retaliate by taking this blog off of my blog's list of external links and I will urge FortheKids of the Reasonable Kansans blog and other bloggers to do the same. I will also post a big blog article announcing why I am removing this blog from my list.
Enough is enough. My temper is growing shorter by the minute.
Furthermore, I will leave the name of this blog in my list of external links but instead of linking to this blog, I will link to my reason for not linking to this blog. I use the Blogger.com template format, which gives me the ability to do this. If you think protecting Dave is worth the consequences, go ahead -- make my day.
ReplyDeleteAlright, everyone calm down.
ReplyDeleteThe "penalty box" comment was part serious, part jest. I was enjoying the comment thread until the insults started.
I do not believe in deleting comments, and both Dave and Larry have made interesting points on this blog.
I'm not protecting anyone. I'm not giving anyone preferential treatment. Everyone gets an opportunity to say what they have to say. Hurling insults is the choice of the individual (a "crime" of which I have been guilty of myself. Much apologies for that).
I don't care WHO started it. I don't care if an individual has been insulted elsewhere. Argue the points and debate with respect. Otherwise I may have to shut down the comments on this blog while everyone cools off.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLarry
ReplyDeleteI apologize for anything Ed Brayton said about you, if that helps.
jjs
I apologize for bringing down the level of commentary on this thread. I should behave myself, and promise to do better in the future.
All right, I haven't read or posted here in awhile. The only reason I return here, occasionally, is to read Dave's comments, from which I sometimes learn things. (Dave, I appreciate your engagement and patience.)
ReplyDeleteLarry F., I will give JJS the respect of acknowledging that a full reading of all your comments could provide an example of an educational moment. I have not been so fortunate.
Larry, you were partly amusing. Now, your threats to control discourse along the lines of your shabby style present you less as a harmless drunk and now more of a belligerent thug.
Enough. I would love to engage regularly in a site like this, but guys like Larry F. are a poison that can't be digested.
Dave said...
ReplyDelete>>>>>> Larry
I apologize for anything Ed Brayton said about you, if that helps.
jjs
I apologize for bringing down the level of commentary on this thread. I should behave myself, and promise to do better in the future. <<<<<<
I would find your apologies more convincing if you deleted that comment -- or asked JJS P.Eng. to delete it for you -- and then reposted it without the link, but that's OK; IMO these attacks on my blog ironically actually help it by attracting visitors. IMO once people actually read my blog, they find that it is not as bad as the critics claim it is.
Tony Hoffman said...
>>>>>> Larry F., I will give JJS the respect of acknowledging that a full reading of all your comments could provide an example of an educational moment. I have not been so fortunate. <<<<<<
You have not even attempted to counter my arguments. You have contributed nothing to this thread.
There are examples of where species have sacrificed reliability in order to benefit other factors that increase their survivability. For example, a wild cheetah that suffers a minor injury that causes it to lose speed is going to starve. Also, the cheetah lacks stamina because it expends energy so rapidly in sprinting that it would quickly die of overheating in a long sprint -- it can sprint for only about a quarter mile and must give up the chase if it does not quickly catch its prey. The cheetah has sacrificed reliability and stamina for speed. Another example of sacrifice of reliability -- though not from the natural world -- are thoroughbred racehorses. Their extremely light legs have increased their speed but also made them prone to breakdowns in racing -- Barbaro and Eight Bells come to mind.
>>>>> your threats to control discourse <<<<<<
What? Complaining about Dave's personal attack on me after JJS asked us to stop the personal attacks is threatening to "control discourse"? And when I was not the one who started the abuse?
Tony, thanks for the kind words. It makes a difference to know that someone besides Larry is reading this blog, and I'm glad that you, at least, occasionally learn something from my comments.
ReplyDeleteLarry, move those goal posts back. How did redundancy become "stamina and reliability"? Show me how a cheetah has no redundant systems. So they only have one eye? One kidney?
Maybe that sort of dishonest argumentation is the reason that you think nobody addresses your arguments. Maybe nobody recognizes them from one comment to the next...
Furthermore, if you want your arguments to be addressed, why are you ignoring this comment thread? Over a week ago I posted a comment showing how your arguments from ignorance were simply wrong. I asked a couple of questions that will probably nail that down when/if you answered them. But you've ignored all of that...
>>>>> How did redundancy become "stamina and reliability"? <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteIncreasing reliability is a purpose of redundancy, so redundancy and reliability are related. I mentioned stamina because it is one of the things that cheetahs sacrifice -- along with reliability (as I said, a minor injury could destroy the cheetah's ability to catch prey) -- for the sake of greater speed.
>>>>>> Show me how a cheetah has no redundant systems. So they only have one eye? One kidney? <<<<<<
And a cheetah has four legs -- but none of them is redundant.
>>>>>> Maybe that sort of dishonest argumentation is the reason that you think nobody addresses your arguments. <<<<<<<
I disagree -- I don't think that argumentation was dishonest at all. Something is not necessarily dishonest just because you don't agree with it.
And look at my original argument: Where human safety is at stake, redundancy is often used in engineered systems to assure the highest reliability -- e.g., dual ignition systems in aircraft piston engines; but redundancy is less important in nature because a high rate of reproduction in a species can compensate for low reliability in the vital systems of individuals of the species. Is that argument dishonest? Yet you made a big stink about it.
You Darwinists are desperately trying to discredit me because you see my arguments against evolution -- e.g., my arguments about co-evolution and complex parasitic relationships -- to be too persuasive. I find it very frustrating to make sensible arguments and then be subjected to a barrage of insults, ad hominem attacks, and frivolous counter-arguments from Darwinists.
>>>>> Furthermore, if you want your arguments to be addressed, why are you ignoring this comment thread? <<<<<<
What? The comment you placed in that thread on this blog is a response to an article on my blog -- I wasn't even aware of your comment! Why wasn't the comment posted on my blog? Also, I should not be expected to answer every comment directed at me -- on the Panda's Thumb blog, for example, some of the comment threads are hundreds of comments long without a single comment from the author of the article.
Alright. I haven't looked at the comments since I last posted. I'm going to do a recap of the conversation as I see it, and then hand down my decision.
ReplyDeleteThe comments started with a conspiracy theory and then a thoughtful discussion on the topic of redundancy.
Dave delivered his first poke at Larry here. Larry, to his credit, resisted and tried to defend himself without insults. Dave poked at Larry again. Larry didn't take the bait. I should note that both Dave and Larry were providing good lucid points on the debate.
Dave couldn't resist and poked at Larry more, and this time, Larry's temper started getting the better of him. It deteriorated from there.
I tried to intervene. Dave apologised but couldn't resist one more poke. Larry exploded.
After my last comment, Dave offered a sincere apology with no pokes (IMO). Larry appeared to calm down and start debating again.
That brings all events to now. Here's my decision. While it is admirable that the debate did get back on track, the insults were more than childish and pissed me off more than I've every been at EE thus far. Therefore, I've decided to re-enable Comment Moderation. If any comments contain personal insults, they will be blocked in moderation and the commenter will be notified and can choose to re-comment without insults, if he/she so chooses.
Further, I am only deleting one comment on this thread"
Larry:
">>>>>> I do not believe in deleting comments, <<<<<<
Then would you delete my comment if I told that dunghill Dave what I think of him? He posted that link AFTER you asked us to stop the insults.
It's like Tybalt stabbing Mercutio after Romeo raised their swords and Mercutio couldn't defend himself. I am fed up with the double standard of bloggers who allow trolls to attack me -- or who attack me themselves -- and then jump on me for retaliating.
I am really pissed off. You have a choice: (1) Delete Dave's comment and ask him to repost it without the link if he wants to, or (2) give me the right to counterattack. Otherwise I am going to carry out my threats."
I posted this so everyone can see what I deleted. I left other comments as is to provide back-up for my decision here. Also, most of the insults were nested inside good comments, but this will not help future comments.
EE Court is adjourned. You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate.
jjs
ReplyDeletethanks
Larry
Increasing reliability is a purpose of redundancy, so redundancy and reliability are related. I mentioned stamina because it is one of the things that cheetahs sacrifice -- along with reliability (as I said, a minor injury could destroy the cheetah's ability to catch prey) -- for the sake of greater speed.
That's still a goalpost move, even if you don't think so. Lots of things are "related", like me and my brother. But we are not the same. Redundancy and "stamina and reliability" are not the same either.
As this bit of projection is a classic - You Darwinists are desperately trying to discredit me because you see my arguments against evolution -- e.g., my arguments about co-evolution and complex parasitic relationships -- to be too persuasive. I find it very frustrating to make sensible arguments and then be subjected to a barrage of insults, ad hominem attacks, and frivolous counter-arguments from Darwinists.
If they are so sensible and persuasive, put 'em in a peer-reviewed paper.
And again, show me, specifically, where I launched a "barrage of insults". So far you haven't been so persuasive on that point either.
JJS wrote: "the controlled demolition theory sounds too far out there for my liking."
ReplyDeleteJust as the intelligent design of living systems sounds too far out to ID critics?
Mike first brings up the metaphor argument in Chapter 3, but it comes up again in 4 and 5, also. It's important to note that Mike doesn't use it as a "proof," but only to justify his suspicion of intelligent design.
Dave:
ReplyDelete>>>>> Lots of things are "related", like me and my brother. But we are not the same. Redundancy and "stamina and reliability" are not the same either. <<<<<
What? They don't have to be the same, they only need to be relevant to the discussion.
>>>>>> If they are so sensible and persuasive, put 'em in a peer-reviewed paper. <<<<<<
I know that you Darwinists are obsessed with peer review, but that one just takes the cake.
BTW, did you know that most law journals are not peer-reviewed? That's right -- it's all here. The hypocritical Judge Jones made a big stink about an alleged lack of peer-reviewed ID articles, but journals in his own field are usually not peer-reviewed.
>>>>>> And again, show me, specifically, where I launched a "barrage of insults". <<<<<<
Then what in hell did you apologize for?
Larry What? They don't have to be the same, they only need to be relevant to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteBut if you are arguing about one thing, and suddenly that is a different thing in the mind of one discussant, it is wrong. Period.
I know that you Darwinists are obsessed with peer review, but that one just takes the cake.
BTW, did you know that most law journals are not peer-reviewed?
Exactly the point in my paragraph above. Science is NOT law. Science journals are NOT law journals. Thanks for proving my point above.
Then what in hell did you apologize for?
For goading you. Read jjs' comment, please.
Hi JJS,
ReplyDeleteJust wondering if you've seen the Danny Jowenko interview, yet.
Hey Bilbo. I saw it yesterday. I think I need to read the NIST report before I comment further on it.
ReplyDeleteGood. I think this would make an excellent topic on a structural engineer's blog -- especially one who is interested in the question of identifying intelligently designed phenomena.
ReplyDeleteBilbo, I'm reading through an NIST briefing issued August 21, 2008, that states their findings on the collapse of WTC7.
ReplyDelete"Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”
The buckling of Column 79* was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures. [Download high-res version]
The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.
The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.
As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.
Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”"
I do agree that this would still make an interesting blog post at EE. It would be along the lines of: By Purpose or By Accident: How Can We Tell?
*See diagram from link provided.
JJS: "I do agree that this would still make an interesting blog post at EE. It would be along the lines of: By Purpose or By Accident: How Can We Tell?"
ReplyDeleteI agree. Interested in starting one after "Blogorama"?
Bilbo, why wait?
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not just any old blogorama: it's BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA! :)