The Design Method of Small Incremental Changes is Useless for Designing Something From Scratch
Debate Rounds (3)
(please only serious challengers.)
Premise 1: There is a wide variety of different types of complex functional systems in life forms and their complexity is very high.
This should be self-evident for anyone who has studied nature.
some examples: eyes of mantis shrimp, nematocyst in jellyfish, bill of platypus, hibernation system of bears, periscope eyes of spook fish, etc.
Most scientists maintain that The design method of small incremental changes (random mutations coupled with natural selection) was responsible for this engineering complexity.
Premise 2: if this is so, then this method ought to be employed by a human being to build some things of moderate complexity FROM SCRATCH (where the human induces a series of small changes which he calculates each one will improves the device somehow.)
I maintain that this is not possible and that the method is useless for designing things of moderate complexity from scratch.
The successful challenger will show me a detailed step by step scenario of how he built a motor or a mechanical watch etc. FROM SCRATCH by small incremental steps.
Here is a functional mechanical clock: http://clicktempus.com...
and a motor: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk...
The challenger may look for intermediate or precursor functionality in the in between steps provided each small step adds some improvement over the previous step.
(the idea is to assemble a functional device of moderate complexity. if you cannot build the above motor or the above mechanical clock then please specify what device you would like to build in the comments so that we can agree it is also something of comparable complexity)
The challenger may use a warehouse of nuts, bolts, springs, gears, metal plates, small motor components, etc. and every kind of raw materials available in a hardware store, but must follow the limitation that every tiny step which he induces improves the device.
As an engineer, I maintain that this method is completely useless for producing a moderate functional design from scratch.
This debate is NOT about living things or evolution - only about the power of the design method of small incremental changes.
This debate is NOT about whether the human body could be designed in a better way or how existing functional proteins can combine to produce new functionality.
It is solely about demonstrating the ability of the method of small incremental steps to assemble a device of moderate complexity.
please be sure to understand this before joining this debate. The first version of this debate was wasted in clarifying the topic of the debate see: http://www.debate.org...
If you would like to assemble a different device than the above mechanical clock or motor, please confirm the device and its function in the comments (to make sure it fits the above criteria of moderate complexity, etc) so that we don't also waste this debate on a bad example.
We build the clock by moving cogs and bolts around until the clock is finished, if any step involved was not improving the design of the lcock or building of it, then it wasn't a step and was you misfollowing what the real step was.
gruntel forfeited this round.
wowwhatwhy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was poor for both sides. They both ff the last round - Tie Spelling/grammar is ok - Tie No source were used - Tie I think con didn't fully understand the challenge, and pro didn't do a great job of refuting con's rebuttal. I think that this debate should have not been accepted in the first place. I vote Pro because his argument wasn't refuted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate