abui01

iTrader: (68)

Going back to what you said - a driver is a driver and pavement is pavement... except rally driving really isn't pavement now is it? Rally driving is but a category of drivers which tackle different types of courses whether that be dirt/mud/snow/gravel - all of which require a different set of skills/techniques to drive on.

Aside from its "stupidness," I believe we all can agree that dangerous street racing is dumb - it's basically beating a dead horse by now but too bad that's totally not what this conversation is about even though I can understand those select few individuals that may get confused. But if you didn't read the first 2-3 pages, we're discussing theories, not how stupid something is. Now if this thread was titled, "Street Racing Rules!" then all "that's stupid, that's dumb, that's idiotic!" comments may hold some value... minus the fact that many totally miss the underlying significance of a discussion in this thread.

Billy, though you may be an avid fan of track racing, the other side of the grass may see things differently. For example, tracks may be timed and people may drive 10/10ths, but some view backroad racing as a sport and some drive on those roads at 10/10ths trying to accomplish a great "street time" as well. Aside from all "oh that's dumb" comments, certain individuals may actually take street/backroad racing seriously and have timed events. Precision and smoothness are tools of measurement which can both be applied to tracks/backroads/dirt roads or whatever road you may be on. The fact given is that regardless of what road or course you may be on, in the end, an individual is attempting to go from point A to B.

Perhaps I should add a disclaimer on the first post just so people will realize these are hypothetical situations to shorten the thread page count to 1-2 pages taking out all the "oh that's dumb/idiotic/stupid" comments LOL.

Billhyco

iTrader: (14)

rally racing is on ALL types of surfaces, including pavement.

also, a hill climb is about the only thing I think you can relate your "street racing" comment to.


i can't believe I posted again, i'm going to go chop off my fingers now.

Z_HighSpeed

iTrader: (5)

+1 darwin

Mz.Bernadette™

the things in life that make you say "Hmm.."

abui01

iTrader: (68)

I was about to lose hope, someone actually got it with 1 single word, LOL!

Z_HighSpeed

iTrader: (5)

lol (=

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

Um..yeah, no.

External variables and physics > your theory

If anything, your "darwin" comment solidifies the counter argument to Abui01's theory.


If your gonna "bust out the science"...at least use it correctly.

abui01

iTrader: (68)

^ uMm... all I have to say is.. do you even know what you're talking about?

I'll give you a whole week to do research on Darwin and edit ur comment to save yourself from embarassment... on a side note... did you even pay attention class? Did you even go to class? LOL

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

Give me your best shot. We'll go from there. Since you'd like to invalidate my comments through a personal attack, let's see you back up your theory by using Darwin's theory as your base.

...and....go....

abui01

iTrader: (68)

I'm actually highly fascinated about what this means:

How does External Variables and Physics > theory?

What external variables are you speaking of? And to what application are these external variables applied to?

The term "theory" is vague, by which theory do you speak of?

abui01

iTrader: (68)

If you are going to challenge someone to a Philosophical debate, make sure he didn't study it all his life or has a much lower IQ level than you. And also make sure he doesn't get paid to do it either. If all you can bring to the table of any intelligent discussion is:

"External variables and physics > your theory"

Then you'll be the laughing stock of the debate team and your professor would automatically fail you. Not to mention no law firm would ever hire you for presenting such a poor case with no thought-out explanation of such a vague statement. Oh BTW, it also makes no sense whatsoever considering the fact that you provided no examples of which variables you speak of in and in what specific application... (that's just for starters) and then you tell someone to "defend their case by using Darwin's base Theory blah blah" as your only mode to sound remotely intelligent. This is like the defendant trying to tell the prosecutor to defend himself... it doesn't work that way son.

I'm not here to prove you right or wrong, but to find inconsistencies in your logic so that you may give birth to new foundations. Hopefully then, we may have threads... or in this example, comments which make more sense. But it's okay, I forgive you.

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

...and thank you for proving my point. You can't explain how Darwin's view on advantageous genetic mutations to a species longevity has anything to do with your theory on "awesome driving skills." Your inept attempt to "flame" me into submission has failed.

Thanks for more personal attacks. Although you may be armed with a high school degree, google and a big sack of self-doubt you like to lay on others, I forgive you as well. (see, it works both ways)

Also, for your theory to be proven, you would need a controlled environment. Having said that, the best possible place to hold such an experiment would be...you guessed it... a track (albeit would be several tracks that the drivers would not have driven before)

I'll concede that your theory has a merit, but it's not based on any facts...only testimonials.
With it being based solely on testimonials, it is null and void.

Good day, sir.

Jgrizzle

iTrader: (7)

I really think using darwin as an example here is inappropriate for both sides. Of course if it be a true death match in which one driver was destroyed for losing and this became the law of the land (see mad max) then maybe in a few years (and by a few i mean one MILLLION) we would begin to see more advantagious traits present themselves. (and then we would be left with some sort of Asian Michael schumacher hybrid). Even then these traits would be the same (reflexes, visual/spacial accuity height weight etc etc) and would leave you with which driver trained on which course yet again showing darwin has no place here.

I think this would be more of a case of nurture rather than nature. To see any real time data the study would have to be done on the here and now. Not over years and years of death matches. (which could get messy) And even then having a "controlled" environment would negate most of what abui is asserting the advantages the road driver has. So to have a controlled environment would be a total fail experiment wise.

Either way, if the members of each driving style fail to cross over on a regular basis it really doesnt matter who is "better". Again all you can do is theorize who would do better in _______ situation. Which is what I think this thread is about. What skills (nurture) give you a better chance at survival in _____ situation.

I have no clue why I wasted this much time writing this. I got all excited when I saw darwin. Oh well, back to chemistry.

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

Agreed.

OT...where are you? My fiance is a PhD candidate at Hopkins (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology). She has a committee meeting soon! She's been there since 2004.

abui01

iTrader: (68)

An attempt needs to be made in order to fail it. If no attempt is made there is no failing involved. Thus your statement above regarding "can't explain" has failed for an assumption is not a fact. However, you failing to obtain facts before presenting an argument is a failure on its own. You sure do like to assume a lot don't you? Wanna throw some soccer moms into Darwin's equation too?

Middle school actually, I kinda dropped out of high school to join a JDM gang.

And just for arguments sake - lets take in example... cockroaches. First generation cockroaches all got killed off to DDT. 2nd...3rd...4th...5th.. etc also got killed off. However, there comes to a point where they became immune to DDT - thus proving Darwin's theory of as you put it "advantageous genetic mutations to a species longevity." However, genetic mutations had to start somewhere correct? (And this is totally off-topic btw) so you're saying that it is therefore absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for even the slightest genetic mutation on an atomic level by a fraction of an percentage for an individual to adapt to a road course? And by a fraction - we mean 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or something along those lines.

BTW - you still haven't clarified your original "external variables physics > theory"

bb1314

iTrader: (62)

How did this thread turn into a who has more education argument?

Jgrizzle

iTrader: (7)

I wasnt trying to throw education into it. I just thought it was more of an acquired characteristic debate than an inherited one. The inherited genes can be assumed to be very close if both are considered "good drivers" in their given field. (reflex coordination etc)

I misread Johnnys post and made an *** of myself. He was asking a nice question and I thought it was somethign different.

Teh internets are serious business... BECARFEUL

Z_HighSpeed

iTrader: (5)

I love how one simple little comment on here sparks a whole big debate flame war.

Those who understand what I meant get it, those who don't no need to attempt to simplify it enough to your level so you can vain some poor conversation...

either way the comment applies even for your "debate" its the internet, anyone can say they know anything or have anything...either way

+1 darwin.

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

Your elementary example and lack of nomenclature proves you haven't the slightest clue in the hard or soft sciences. Prove me wrong and we'll discuss this topic indepth, if not, I refuse to lower to your level.

I'll wait for the personal attacks again.

and...go

JohnnyHT

iTrader: (2)

Nothing, hence the "OT"...just wondered if you went to school there. I should have PM'd.