Evolution answers

[bruto]

Someone offered an analogy of a car engine and car exhaust. Why does the exhaust run all the way from the front of the car to the rear? Was the engine badly designed to have it in front when it could have been put at the back making for a shorter exhaust?

Actually the existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust makes a lot of sense and once understood also makes it very acceptable. And for that very reason most cars are made that way.

Actually, of course, that's utter nonsense.

First of all, there have been plenty of cars with rear engines, some of them quite decent. I'd love to have a Porsche, for example.

Second, the reason for the exhaust routing has nothing to do with what is optimal for the engine, but what is optimal for the passengers. It's trivially easy to put the exhaust of a front engine in the front, as anyone who has bothered to look at a big truck or a tractor should have figured out. It just happens that it's quieter and healthier for the passengers of a car to route it to the rear.

If you even think of the problem as one of "the relationship of engine to exhaust" you're almost certainly missing the point of why things are where they are.

 

[bruto]

I have put literally minutes of thought into it,
...etc. snipped for economy

A grand theory to be sure, and one which would do a Gnostic proud. Long long ago in a universe far away I took a course on Gnosticism, and I seem to recall that something very like this, though perhaps with was proposed by some. Of course with less humor and far more verbiage.

 

[justintime]

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Someone offered an analogy of a car engine and car exhaust. Why does the exhaust run all the way from the front of the car to the rear? Was the engine badly designed to have it in front when it could have been put at the back making for a shorter exhaust?

Actually the existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust makes a lot of sense and once understood also makes it very acceptable. And for that very reason most cars are made that way.

Actually, of course, that's utter nonsense.

First of all, there have been plenty of cars with rear engines, some of them quite decent. I'd love to have a Porsche, for example.

Second, the reason for the exhaust routing has nothing to do with what is optimal for the engine, but what is optimal for the passengers. It's trivially easy to put the exhaust of a front engine in the front, as anyone who has bothered to look at a big truck or a tractor should have figured out. It just happens that it's quieter and healthier for the passengers of a car to route it to the rear.
If you even think of the problem as one of "the relationship of engine to exhaust" you're almost certainly missing the point of why things are where they are.

How is it utter nonsense when you admit. " it's quieter and healthier for the passengers of a car to route it to the rear.
Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

 

[Aridas]

No thanks. I'll stick to what the (overwhelming) majority in the scientific community agrees upon regarding evolution. Until that changes, I see no reason to go off reading about other theories as I am not qualified to judge those. I'll accept the fact that if there is something inherently so wrong with the current Theory of Evolution, scientific testing will discover it and help evolve the theory further. Until then, I'll let the experts make that decision.

And frankly, I don't see you getting very far with your theory if you can't answer some of the basic (to me... a non-biologist) questions that have been asked of you so far.

For the record, the link involved just trying to throw mud at the wall and hoping that it sticks by employing highly misleading statements, half-truths, and blatant lies. None of the examples cited were remotely as bad as they were made out to be, nor could they honestly be called evidence against evolution.

Either way, to be amused with a quote from the Bible, Matthew 7:3 applies saddeningly well to the one who made that site and justintime. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

But your creationist friend has already debunked most of the evolutionary theories propounded by experts.

I've heard a lot try to claim that they have, but when the arguments are actually made, all they do is show that the creationists have no idea what they're talking about and generally are willing to descend into dishonesty and terrible logic.

In fact they are the only ones in a position to challenge evolution because they too have qualified scientists rejecting outdated implausible theories.

Not even remotely. Quite a few scientists would very, very much like the fame and fortune that would likely come from being the one to prove any major theory wrong, very much including the Theory of Evolution. Beyond that, the people you propose are the only ones qualified have generally proven themselves to have remarkably little understanding of the subject that they criticize.

Your best bet would be to find what has not yet been debunked by them and that is why it is important for you to know what they have already debunked.

Unfortunately you won't get that from the experts because they are not in the business of debunking their own cherished theories and would rather you remained uninformed or even misinformed.

Of course the experts aren't in the business of debunking their own theories. Generally, these AREN'T their own theories, though, and are subject to the review of lots of people who would be quite happy to point out where the theories fail. As for the remain uniformed or misinformed, the projection that you're employing is amusing.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

So I looked it up in Gray's Anatomy and don't see why you point this out.

 

[Aridas]

So I looked it up in Gray's Anatomy and don't see why you point this out.

Simple. He's making the rather foolish claim that something is being used in a particularly way, therefore it was intentionally designed just like that to do that, never mind that there are much better ways that it could have been designed to accomplish the same task.

 

[bruto]

Actually the existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust makes a lot of sense and once understood also makes it very acceptable. And for that very reason most cars are made that way.




How is it utter nonsense when you admit. " it's quieter and healthier for the passengers of a car to route it to the rear.
Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

You seem to miss my point. It is of course not at all utter nonsense that the exhaust exits to the rear of a car, nor is it beyond understanding the reasons for this. What is utter nonsense is the suggestion that it is a matter of the relationship of exhaust to engine. It is, in fact, an unfortunate interference in that relationship. An engine has an exhaust. There are some aspects in which the relationship of exhaust to engine is important, such as making sure that it does not heat parts of the engine that should not be heated by exhaust, making sure that it is no inhaled by the engine beyond what EGR is designed to accomplish, and making sure that the pulse effect from multi-cylinder exhausts does not reflect back in the wrong ways. But of course if you flew a multi engined aircraft with its engines on the wings, the relationship of exhaust to engine would have nothing at all to do with the health and comfort of passengers. The necessity of keeping the exhaust out of passengers' snoots is, as far as the engine itself is concerned, an obstacle.

 

[John Jones]

So I looked it up in Gray's Anatomy and don't see why you point this out.

Because he lies reflexively, and doesn't expect anyone to check his sources.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Actually the existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust makes a lot of sense and once understood also makes it very acceptable. And for that very reason most cars are made that way.

I would simply like to point out, for the record, as you are (I'm certain) fully aware, that you did not even begin to address the question of the "existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust"...I can even explain why (it is much like you problem with reading a {as you called it} "cladistic cladogram"). You really, really ought to address the issue, and answer the question, if you can.

So please: enlighten us.

How is it utter nonsense when you admit. " it's quieter and healthier for the passengers of a car to route it to the rear.

Are you saying then, that the purpose of the location ofthe exhaust outlet has to do with ameliorating the experience of the passengers, and is not,in fact, the "existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust"? How surprising.

Take another try--what is (are) the function(s) of the exhaust system of an internal combustion engine, and what "design considerations" must be considered?

Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

I find it interesting that you are willing to celebrata a sub-optimal, even dysfynctional design, as "intentionally designed", for a specific purpose.

BTW, be so kind as to identify the edition of Gray's you are pretending to be citing, and upon what page of that edition the path of the recursive laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is mentioned.

Thanks ever so.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

It is DESCRIBED in Gray's Anatomy, not explained.

 

[John Jones]

I would simply like to point out, for the record, as you are (I'm certain) fully aware, that you did not even begin to address the question of the "existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust"...I can even explain why (it is much like you problem with reading a {as you called it} "cladistic cladogram"). You really, really ought to address the issue, and answer the question, if you can.

So please: enlighten us.



Are you saying then, that the purpose of the location ofthe exhaust outlet has to do with ameliorating the experience of the passengers, and is not,in fact, the "existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust"? How surprising.

Take another try--what is (are) the function(s) of the exhaust system of an internal combustion engine, and what "design considerations" must be considered?



I find it interesting that you are willing to celebrata a sub-optimal, even dysfynctional design, as "intentionally designed", for a specific purpose.

BTW, be so kind as to identify the edition of Gray's you are pretending to be citing, and upon what page of that edition the path of the recursive laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is mentioned.
Thanks ever so.

Don't forget the ISBN, justintime. You've been caught lying about this very kind of thing before.

Remember the Demon Haunted World, page 78 fiasco? It's stored here, if you need some help recollecting your shame and humiliation.

 

[bruto]

Justintime, as soon as Slowvehicle gets over whatever silly football bet is going on, you should check out his avatar, which includes one of the classic counterexamples to your inapt automotive analogy.

I refer, of course, to the timelessly elegant VW Crew Cab Pickup Truck, all of whose exhaust was within about a foot of the engine, and most of that was heat exchangers.

The relationship between exhaust and engine is that it gets out and goes away. Everything else is a relationship between exhaust and something else. The engine does not care whether or not the passengers die or the grass catches fire.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Exhaust systems are a great example for talking about the difference between designed and evolved systems, actually. Form follows function in designed systems, but in evolved systems you're stuck with the ideas before you and all you can do is modify them in the least costly manner possible to achieve the minimal benefit change required to achieve a higher level of survival. In evolved systems "Failure is always an option," because multiple models in the environment mean that the system is hedging its bets. Some ideas succeed, others fail, the core engineering continues one way or the other.

In WW2 aircraft massive engines were used at the front of the aircraft (talking about your basic psiton-engine fighter here) and the exhaust pipes were short tubes a foot or two long poking out the side of the fuselage right next to the engine. Top Fuel dragsters still use that kind of exhaust, because the short pipes put the least possible restriction on the flow of hot waste gasses. In dragsters the exhaust pipes dump flames into the air, because they can't allow the pistons to slow down even a little bit. Modern cars have massive back-pressure loads to reduce noise, pollution, and prevent killing the occupants. Totally different needs.

In evolved systems, you're not allowed to throw out everything and start from scratch, ever. You're stuck with previous engineering decisions. You're allowed to change one thing at a time, and only within the range-of-motion of the thing your changing. Mass-market car lines in mass production are actually decent examples of designed systems, until the early '80s or so. Because production lines are expensive to change they had as few changes from year to year as possible. Just like evolving life forms.

A 1976 auto was, really, the absolute expression of the state-of-the-art 1940's auto. Little changes happened over time, (better ergonomics, curved glass, increased safety) but until the 1978 emission rules kicked in (earlier in California) nothing radical happened. But even today car makers are still stuck with exhaust systems designed in the '40s, plus the catalytic converter. Pipe the exhaust to the back and jamb a muffler in there somewhere to cut the noise. Oh, and you probably want some heat shielding if your hot pipes run past the brake lines or fuel lines. The models that didn't do that died off and didn't replicate themselves into the next generation of engineering.

Meanwhile, in special purpose Intelligently Designed machinery, all the rules are allowed to be tossed out and only brought back into play if they solve the problems on hand in the best possible way. The warplanes' exhaust system didn't need to have mufflers or emission controls, so the Intelligent Designers tossed those out. The operator was in a sealed cabin so the waste gasses were irrelevant. The only thing the system had to do was get the waste gasses out of the intake stream with minimum impact on the horsepower output.

- - - - --

Engines would be a great example of an evolved system, now that I think about it. Hmm!

 

[Brian-M]

Demonstrating evolution is NOT a matter of finding 'flaws' in things.

People don't point out flaws in things in order to provide support for the theory of evolution, they do this to demonstrate why the belief that these things were the product of an intelligent design is laughable.

(Although, I suppose the counter-argument to that would be that the creator was either careless or incompetent.)

 

[Brian-M]

UnrepentantSinner all the missing links have been rejected with equal vigor.

Simply repeating something doesn't make it true. You've already been corrected on this point several times. For example...

Please name the missing-link scientists have confirmed.

Here's a few...

STS 5 (Australopithecus africanus)
KNM-ER 3733 (Homo ergaster)
D2700 (Homo erectus)
KNM-ER 1813 (Homo habilis)​

Now stop lying.

Have we found the missing link?

What missing link? A link between what and what? You can't be referring to a link between humans and our apelike ancestors, because we've got plenty of those.

People don't take any of this fossil stuff seriously

So you're just joking around when you ask about this stuff?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Regarding the "missing link" the lineage of fossils from earliest H. habilis to latest H. erectus are understood by most anthropologists to be one very long transitional stage, with less difference between any two temporally adjacent samples than would be expected if the two "species" were actually separate. What we are seeing in the genus Homo is a long line of very successful creatures leading from one to the other over time. They were originally named and understood as "separate" species, but they're just the same gene pool who continued to move forward and improve genetically for several millions of years.

 

[pakeha]

...Like so the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function purpose, it affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy.

The giraffe's laryngeal nerve is explained in Gray’s Anatomy?
Really?
Which season and what episode?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So you're just joking around when you ask about this stuff?

He's joking around when he says everything. He's a really obvious POE, and I have no idea why anybody treats him otherwise.

 

[foophil]

But your creationist friend has already debunked most of the evolutionary theories propounded by experts. In fact they are the only ones in a position to challenge evolution because they too have qualified scientists rejecting outdated implausible theories. Your best bet would be to find what has not yet been debunked by them and that is why it is important for you to know what they have already debunked.

Unfortunately you won't get that from the experts because they are not in the business of debunking their own cherished theories and would rather you remained uninformed or even misinformed.

No. Wrong. Incorrect. What you are saying is completely false, and a flat out lie if you are intentionally ignoring all the facts you've been shown. FACTS. You and my friend have been shown why you are wrong so many times. My friend has actually stopped arguing against Evolution, as he did when shown all the facts behind global warming when he first denied that.

Saying you and my friend are the only ones in a position able to challenge evolution is laughable. Nearly everyone in the scientific community believes in the current Theory of Evolution. Just because a few don't doesn't change the fact that it is the best theory we have to explain what we observe (and what we can predict). Until a better theory is proposed, and the majority of scientists accept it, I will continue to trust in their methods to come to the correct answer. That is because I understand how science works.

 

[Wowbagger]

People don't point out flaws in things in order to provide support for the theory of evolution, they do this to demonstrate why the belief that these things were the product of an intelligent design is laughable.

(Although, I suppose the counter-argument to that would be that the creator was either careless or incompetent.)

But, it fails to achieve that! Pointing out 'design flaws' only makes the Designer look 'more genius than we first thought', once purposes are deduced for those flaws.

(Of course, Evolution has the upper hand, here, because it can anticipate what those 'purposes' are, at a faster rate than Creationism, (whose only power is deduce that there 'MUST be a purpose, somewhere!'). But, saying that won't be convincing.)

It's better to dish out things they can't respond to so well. And, there are PLENTY of those!