Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
U.S. Automakers Aim to Standardize Parts
An alluring temptation it has been to have some fun at Naseeb this bone-chilling weekend here, so I thought I would babble over a story in CNN Money, which released a news story a few days ago, a story that made headlines in my home state of Michigan money.cnn.com - partial story posted below in case the link is dead by AD 2099). The upshot of the news is that, with business losses mounting at Ford, GM and Chrysler (businesses that help drive the Michigan economy), the companies have learnt from the emerging Asian auto industry leaders, Toyota and Honda, that using standard and common parts (?common architecture?) across several vehicle platforms results in engineering and manufacturing efficiency and cost saving. They have especially chosen to standardize the cost-prohibitive segments, powertrain and chassis underbody. The story points to the results of a study, which found that the ?lack of common parts is one reason why Ford, GM and Chrysler made an average of $2,400 less per vehicle in 2005 than their Japanese competitors.?
By now, if you have not already raised the question, allow me the honor to do so. Why am I babbling, mumbling, rumbling, musing, whining, and Naseeb-ing about the economy, business, Japanese competitors, auto engineering, and non-evolutionary, non-ID blah, blah, blah in an ID forum? Am I hallucinating, or did I not get enough sleep last night, or have I eaten the inverse square root of sleeping pills, or what? Okay, okay ? I will get to the point soon, I promise. By the way, I do not hallucinate or take sleeping pills, in case you are wondering, ?Maybe that?s why he?s so crazy about this whole ID thing.? Alright, enough, don?t make fun of moi! Evolutionary biology considers morphological and phylogenetic homology (quicky and dirty translation: homology = similarity) of certain features in living things (e.g., bat?s wings and whale?s flippers, and bones in frog, bird, rabbit, and lizard forelimbs) and homology of protein sequences in biochemical systems (e.g., bacterial type III cellular secretion system and irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum) as ?evidence? that the features or proteins evolved from a common ancestor. However (and here?s the point ? well, one of the points ? that you have been patiently awaiting), commonality, homology, or similarity between living things through space (geography) and time is not a foolproof evidence of common ancestry through the Darwinist mechanisms of mutation and selection since it just as well could be that a designer intentionally chose to use common features and proteins throughout a diverse group of living organisms for design efficiency. That is how even human designers (engineers) work.
Evolutionists told me in school that homology is evidence of common ancestry. The latest edition of my biology textbook still says so :( But it?s alright ? I know better now since I am more of a umm ? ?Mr. Critical Thinking? now. And I am spreading the word to the rest of the interested souls too.
Okay. Let me now go back to the story and get this straight ? the auto industry has learnt that using common design platforms across the board is an efficient design, engineering, and manufacturing strategy. Now, the macroevolutionist industry claims that commonality between living things is evidence of common ancestry through mutation and selection. But here is the question I ask: could a designer not have intentionally implemented common design platforms for efficient design, engineering, and manufacturing (that is, reproduction and replication) of living things just like the ?Japanese competitors? have implemented common design platforms on vehicles? Could a genius designer not have re-used certain common building blocks (proteins, etc.) and anatomical features over and over again to make many different kinds of living creatures in many, many different kinds of habitats over the course of many, many, many (you get the idea) geologic eons? Could the designer not have made certain aerodynamic features of an extinct, flying reptile species similar to those of modern birds since they all have to meet the objective of flight in the Earth?s atmosphere? Could the designer not have used certain proteins, also found in the simpler type III secretion system, to make an irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum? What else (help me out, here) ? Could the designer not have given the wing structure of birds and bats a ?common architecture? like GM has done so with their vehicles (excellent! thank you!)? So, hopefully, it is clear that all this is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry. Hey, no wonder, they made $2,400 less profit per vehicle for inefficient design than did their Japanese competitors whose design is more efficient!
Now let?s pull a Darwinist out of our magical black box, and let?s see what he has to say. You know the kind of trick that magicians use? I have seen them pull one, two, and even three rabbits out of the box! Out pops the Darwinist, who says, ?Yeah, well, yes the designer could have chosen to do all that, but since we do not want to invoke the ? ah ?G? word, and, and ? miracles, religion, and supernatural we, we wish to ahm ? remain sticky, sticky, sticky ? GLUED to the methodological naturalism of the Darwinist mechanism, however ridiculously implausible the mechanism may be.? I say, ?ID, as strictly a scientific theory, does not rule out the possibility that an alien civilization from outer space did the design work. If you do not want God, then at least take the alien route. What?s up with that, huh? Geez, gimmee a break! ID theory doesn?t say that God did it, does it? ID merely makes an INFERENCE that ?SOME intelligent designer? must have done it. That is ALL it does, alright? Why can?t you accept that?? And then the Darwinist gives me one last frown straight into my drooling eyes, throws the pile of precious research papers over my wide-open face, and runs to the exit door of the conference room, banging shut the door behind him. So much for the magic of the black box! I swear that I will never, ever pull a Darwinist out of a black box again for the rest my natural life. Sigh!
Thought for the day: The designer has been using, since the last 3.5 billion years, the efficient design engineering principles that the humans, as a civilization, have still not perfected. Go ahead and mull over the thought at your favorite bedtime, as I certainly will.
Nadeem
-----------------
CNN Money: U.S. automakers aim to standardize parts
January 23, 2007: 03:29 PM EST
DETROIT, Jan. 23, 2007 (AFX International Focus) -- You've probably never seen the firewall, that slab of steel between you and the heat of your car's engine, nor do you care about it. But the way it's designed and welded into vehicles may be the key to financial survival for U.S. automakers, and the key to how much you pay for cars in the future.
Currently, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) , DaimlerChrysler AG's (NYSE DCX) Chrysler Group and General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM) have dozens of firewalls. But Toyota Motor Corp. (NYSE:TM) , the recognized leader in manufacturing efficiency, has only a few, and the only difference in those is the width.
All the holes for wires and ducts are in the same place, and a worker at any plant worldwide can install one in almost any of Toyota's models because they fit together the same way.
It's the commonality of thousands of parts from the firewall to the frame, combined with standardized manufacturing techniques across the globe that make Toyota and Honda Motor Co. (NYSE:HMC) more efficient.
With losses piling up in Detroit, U.S. automakers are racing to become more efficient. Industry officials say consumers will benefit because car companies will dramatically reduce costs, resulting in stable prices, increased quality, more features and new models coming out at a faster pace.
'This is it for so much of everything else,' said Laurie Harbour-Felax, president of the Harbour-Felax Group, a Royal Oak, Mich., consulting company that has studied competitive differences between U.S. and Asian automakers. 'It enables everything else in terms of competitiveness.'
The lack of common parts is one reason why Ford, GM and Chrysler made an average of $2,400 less per vehicle in 2005 than their Japanese competitors, according to a study by the Harbour-Felax Group released late last year.
Of the Big Three, GM is farther ahead in the race to base more of its models on 'common architecture,' Harbour-Felax said.
Ford is the farthest behind, according to Harbour-Felax, but the company says it, too, is working to globalize its car parts and manufacturing.
GM now builds a small sport utility vehicle (the Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Equinox in the U.S.) with standardized parts in factories across the globe, and later this year will debut a globally designed and manufactured mid-sized car.
By now, if you have not already raised the question, allow me the honor to do so. Why am I babbling, mumbling, rumbling, musing, whining, and Naseeb-ing about the economy, business, Japanese competitors, auto engineering, and non-evolutionary, non-ID blah, blah, blah in an ID forum? Am I hallucinating, or did I not get enough sleep last night, or have I eaten the inverse square root of sleeping pills, or what? Okay, okay ? I will get to the point soon, I promise. By the way, I do not hallucinate or take sleeping pills, in case you are wondering, ?Maybe that?s why he?s so crazy about this whole ID thing.? Alright, enough, don?t make fun of moi! Evolutionary biology considers morphological and phylogenetic homology (quicky and dirty translation: homology = similarity) of certain features in living things (e.g., bat?s wings and whale?s flippers, and bones in frog, bird, rabbit, and lizard forelimbs) and homology of protein sequences in biochemical systems (e.g., bacterial type III cellular secretion system and irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum) as ?evidence? that the features or proteins evolved from a common ancestor. However (and here?s the point ? well, one of the points ? that you have been patiently awaiting), commonality, homology, or similarity between living things through space (geography) and time is not a foolproof evidence of common ancestry through the Darwinist mechanisms of mutation and selection since it just as well could be that a designer intentionally chose to use common features and proteins throughout a diverse group of living organisms for design efficiency. That is how even human designers (engineers) work.
Evolutionists told me in school that homology is evidence of common ancestry. The latest edition of my biology textbook still says so :( But it?s alright ? I know better now since I am more of a umm ? ?Mr. Critical Thinking? now. And I am spreading the word to the rest of the interested souls too.
Okay. Let me now go back to the story and get this straight ? the auto industry has learnt that using common design platforms across the board is an efficient design, engineering, and manufacturing strategy. Now, the macroevolutionist industry claims that commonality between living things is evidence of common ancestry through mutation and selection. But here is the question I ask: could a designer not have intentionally implemented common design platforms for efficient design, engineering, and manufacturing (that is, reproduction and replication) of living things just like the ?Japanese competitors? have implemented common design platforms on vehicles? Could a genius designer not have re-used certain common building blocks (proteins, etc.) and anatomical features over and over again to make many different kinds of living creatures in many, many different kinds of habitats over the course of many, many, many (you get the idea) geologic eons? Could the designer not have made certain aerodynamic features of an extinct, flying reptile species similar to those of modern birds since they all have to meet the objective of flight in the Earth?s atmosphere? Could the designer not have used certain proteins, also found in the simpler type III secretion system, to make an irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum? What else (help me out, here) ? Could the designer not have given the wing structure of birds and bats a ?common architecture? like GM has done so with their vehicles (excellent! thank you!)? So, hopefully, it is clear that all this is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry. Hey, no wonder, they made $2,400 less profit per vehicle for inefficient design than did their Japanese competitors whose design is more efficient!
Now let?s pull a Darwinist out of our magical black box, and let?s see what he has to say. You know the kind of trick that magicians use? I have seen them pull one, two, and even three rabbits out of the box! Out pops the Darwinist, who says, ?Yeah, well, yes the designer could have chosen to do all that, but since we do not want to invoke the ? ah ?G? word, and, and ? miracles, religion, and supernatural we, we wish to ahm ? remain sticky, sticky, sticky ? GLUED to the methodological naturalism of the Darwinist mechanism, however ridiculously implausible the mechanism may be.? I say, ?ID, as strictly a scientific theory, does not rule out the possibility that an alien civilization from outer space did the design work. If you do not want God, then at least take the alien route. What?s up with that, huh? Geez, gimmee a break! ID theory doesn?t say that God did it, does it? ID merely makes an INFERENCE that ?SOME intelligent designer? must have done it. That is ALL it does, alright? Why can?t you accept that?? And then the Darwinist gives me one last frown straight into my drooling eyes, throws the pile of precious research papers over my wide-open face, and runs to the exit door of the conference room, banging shut the door behind him. So much for the magic of the black box! I swear that I will never, ever pull a Darwinist out of a black box again for the rest my natural life. Sigh!
Thought for the day: The designer has been using, since the last 3.5 billion years, the efficient design engineering principles that the humans, as a civilization, have still not perfected. Go ahead and mull over the thought at your favorite bedtime, as I certainly will.
Nadeem
-----------------
CNN Money: U.S. automakers aim to standardize parts
January 23, 2007: 03:29 PM EST
DETROIT, Jan. 23, 2007 (AFX International Focus) -- You've probably never seen the firewall, that slab of steel between you and the heat of your car's engine, nor do you care about it. But the way it's designed and welded into vehicles may be the key to financial survival for U.S. automakers, and the key to how much you pay for cars in the future.
Currently, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) , DaimlerChrysler AG's (NYSE DCX) Chrysler Group and General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM) have dozens of firewalls. But Toyota Motor Corp. (NYSE:TM) , the recognized leader in manufacturing efficiency, has only a few, and the only difference in those is the width.
All the holes for wires and ducts are in the same place, and a worker at any plant worldwide can install one in almost any of Toyota's models because they fit together the same way.
It's the commonality of thousands of parts from the firewall to the frame, combined with standardized manufacturing techniques across the globe that make Toyota and Honda Motor Co. (NYSE:HMC) more efficient.
With losses piling up in Detroit, U.S. automakers are racing to become more efficient. Industry officials say consumers will benefit because car companies will dramatically reduce costs, resulting in stable prices, increased quality, more features and new models coming out at a faster pace.
'This is it for so much of everything else,' said Laurie Harbour-Felax, president of the Harbour-Felax Group, a Royal Oak, Mich., consulting company that has studied competitive differences between U.S. and Asian automakers. 'It enables everything else in terms of competitiveness.'
The lack of common parts is one reason why Ford, GM and Chrysler made an average of $2,400 less per vehicle in 2005 than their Japanese competitors, according to a study by the Harbour-Felax Group released late last year.
Of the Big Three, GM is farther ahead in the race to base more of its models on 'common architecture,' Harbour-Felax said.
Ford is the farthest behind, according to Harbour-Felax, but the company says it, too, is working to globalize its car parts and manufacturing.
GM now builds a small sport utility vehicle (the Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Equinox in the U.S.) with standardized parts in factories across the globe, and later this year will debut a globally designed and manufactured mid-sized car.