Evolution is dead

I have heard they will honor all kits in production and are keeping enough staff on to complete them.
 
John221us said:
I have heard they will honor all kits in production and are keeping enough staff on to complete them.
Click to expand...
That's good. I'd be ****ed if I had zero support with no warning. They still haven't said anything on their website/social media.
 
luvflyin said:
Evolution is dead?? That's an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh....no. :crazy:

Evolution and death aren't contradictory. Something like evolution going downhill or falling apart however might meet the definition.​
 
Last edited:
To bad,unfortunate for the owners,of the aircraft.
 
True-Cost-Of-Clickbait-NATIVE-Sharethrough.jpg
 
Cooter said:
Ehhhh....no. :crazy:

Evolution and death aren't contradictory. Something like evolution going downhill or falling apart however might meet the definition.​
Click to expand...
Ah. De evolution. Can't be no such thing. Unless you've already decided where evolution should go, and if it don't, then it's de evolution. Anyway, yer right, evolution and death aren't contradictory. It was an absurd statement on my part to say that 'evolution is dead' is an oxymoron. Evolution has a mind of it's own and ensures life. Ok, I'm way off aviation related. But then I ain't the one what named an airplane 'Evolution.'
 
Well, Scopes should have just stuck to the curriculum.
 
luvflyin said:
Ah. De evolution. Can't be no such thing. Unless you've already decided where evolution should go, and if it don't, then it's de evolution. Anyway, yer right, evolution and death aren't contradictory. It was an absurd statement on my part to say that 'evolution is dead' is an oxymoron. Evolution has a mind of it's own and ensures life. Ok, I'm way off aviation related. But then I ain't the one what named an airplane 'Evolution.'
Click to expand...
Evolution ensures life? that sounds like a religious belief to me.
 
The design of evolution is such that . . . wait, design?
 
FastEddieB said:
Wait...

37796548982_ef19a93b85.jpg
Click to expand...

Ahh clickbait, old style.

All they needed to do was put the answer on page 25 but each time you want to turn over a page the page shifts just enough so that you end up grabbing a page from another magazine instead...
 
luvflyin said:
Evolution has a mind of it's own and ensures life.
Click to expand...
That's just silly sounding. A blind and mindless process has a mind of its own and it ensures life? You make evolution sound like God. :cool:

But I was talking about the word evolution and oxymorons. "Living is dying!" is a oxymoron. Your statement didn't seem to meet the requirement unless you assumed the evolution IS life. Evolution isn't life, it assumes life. It attempts to describe a process that occurs after life is present and is replicating. Evolution in the larger sense also is the answer given for increased complexity and is tied to improvement. So, evolution falling apart or going downhill would be contradictory to the modern notion of evolution.
 
After reading the Oct 19 story by AOPA, I think the headline should be "Lawyers Kill Evolution."
 
Actually, Darwin was wrong. He was right about natural selection, but he was way off base as to why there was variance in the population that would lead to something being "selectable."
Mendel's understanding of genetics didn't occur for a few more years and wasn't widely accepted until 50 years or so later.
 
NoHeat said:
After reading the Oct 19 story by AOPA, I think the headline should be "Lawyers Kill Evolution."
Click to expand...

Do you perhaps mean, "Our legal system, which allows attorneys to pursue such cases, killed Evolution"?
(I can't place blame on attorneys who are using our system in the manner in which it was designed.)
 
Isn't it actually the insurance companies that killed it? Unwilling to underwrite the potential liability?

Some random observations:

- Much complaining about Icon's purchase contract. Could it be a good chunk of it was trying to protect the company and its shareholders from similar outcomes?

- At Oshkosh in 1985 Burt Rutan announced to a shocked forum audience the RAF was discontinuing the sale of plans. He cited the liability exposure and went on to warn that airplanes like his Defiant were going so far beyond the original intent of the amateur built rules it was bound to result in problems for this whole sector of aviation.

- The Mesa crash suggests that airplane did not have sufficient electrical system redundancy to be a robust IFR airplane ("lose all the displays"). Should an amateur built pressurized single engine turboprop have electrical and instrumentation systems designed to the same standard as a similar certified airplane?
 
Last edited:
There is talk in the Lancair group that, like many of these issues, a variety of financial factors played into this event.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not so much wrong, given the knowledge of the day, but incomplete.
Click to expand...
No, actually wrong. Darwin's theory of spontaneous generation was 100% incorrect. Pasteur disproved it at the same time Darwin was espousing natural selection. Of course, we don't bother talking about his wrong theories, only the correct ones. SG was a shaky theory to start with.
 
GRG55 said:
The Mesa crash suggests that airplane did not have sufficient electrical system redundancy to be a robust IFR airplane ("lose all the displays"). Should an amateur built pressurized single engine turboprop have electrical and instrumentation systems designed to the same standard as a similar certified airplane?
Click to expand...
I sure would want redundant electrical and instrumentation systems flying IFR. Not having redundant systems is like playing Russian roulette.
 
Cooter said:
That's just silly sounding. A blind and mindless process has a mind of its own and it ensures life? You make evolution sound like God. :cool:

But I was talking about the word evolution and oxymorons. "Living is dying!" is a oxymoron. Your statement didn't seem to meet the requirement unless you assumed the evolution IS life. Evolution isn't life, it assumes life. It attempts to describe a process that occurs after life is present and is replicating. Evolution in the larger sense also is the answer given for increased complexity and is tied to improvement. So, evolution falling apart or going downhill would be contradictory to the modern notion of evolution.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Like I said, what I said about the oxymoron was absurd on my part. Just a quick tongue in cheek punchline. Evolution ensuring life was about 'natural selection.' Survival of the fittest. At least being fit enough to survive long enough to procreate and pass along whatever genes it is you got that allowed you to survive that long.
 
AKBill said:
I sure would want redundant electrical and instrumentation systems flying IFR. Not having redundant systems is like playing Russian roulette.
Click to expand...

Granted, to most pedestrians, flying recreationally outright qualifies as such.
 
For what it's worth, I flew a test flight in one of these a couple of years ago. It was a pretty impressive airplane. But I was just looking at the performance not the details. Whatever killed it, too bad. I do feel sorry for the owners.
 
flyingron said:
No, actually wrong. Darwin's theory of spontaneous generation was 100% incorrect. Pasteur disproved it at the same time Darwin was espousing natural selection. Of course, we don't bother talking about his wrong theories, only the correct ones. SG was a shaky theory to start with.
Click to expand...

To the best of my understanding, spontaneous generation was grasping at straws to explain abiogenesis, which is still not fully understood. Darwin wrote more on how species evolved, once life had begun. And could only speculate about how it came about in the first place. Overall, his theory has withstood the test of time quite well overall - obviously a century of scientific discoveries has refined and added a lot of detail while fully supporting the general theory.
 
Spontaneous generation and Darwin's theory in general was largely ignorant of the complexity of genetic information. To this day, the complexity of the cell and the origin of information poses the greatest challenge to Darwin's theory.
 
Scrabo said:
Someone might buy it and relaunch as “Intelligent Design“
Click to expand...

So what! Can you prove otherwise? there are many h=theories dating back from who knows when. Proving all the if ands or buts are above our capability at the moment.
 
Turboprop powered yahoo built plastic with a consumer grade dynon velcroed to a flat plate, and a joystick from a kid's PS controller, always seemed too libertarian even for my "to each their own" tastes :D
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Do you perhaps mean, "Our legal system, which allows attorneys to pursue such cases, killed Evolution"?
(I can't place blame on attorneys who are using our system in the manner in which it was designed.)
Click to expand...

Maybe the concept of selling completed noncertified aircraft using a loophole in the EAB rules was not viable in the existing legal framework ?

Other EAB kit builders have been sued but apparently the risk of such a suit prevailing are low enough that the insurers are willing to cover it. With turnkey million dollar aircraft that are flown around by a wealthy clientele that is not part of the classic EAB community, the risk of a lawsuit after a crash is certainly higher.

Doesn't help that the Evolution had a measurable percentage of the fleet lost in the first few years. Not Lancair IVp bad but still higher than other mass builder models.
 
Norman said:
So what! Can you prove otherwise? there are many h=theories dating back from who knows when. Proving all the if ands or buts are above our capability at the moment.
Click to expand...

upload_2017-10-21_15-13-44.png
 
I've heard lawyers are responsible and I've heard insurance companies are responsible, but I think the responsibility lies along a more intuitive path :oops:

[break] Do some of y'all go on religious forums to start arguments about airplanes?

Nauga,
not a fan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top