Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,07:43    Quote # I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business. Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am I Worked At DELL. DELL! Do you hear me!?!?! -ds

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,07:57    (with apologies to Marilyn Manson) I have a big stock And very big cock That's all I need to be a scientist I'd like to ban you but my finger is sore I did I did I did work at Dell -ds

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,08:18    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/926#comments Quote The nebula we have found with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope is a remarkable example of something that can be accomodated by the scientific enterprise as readily as we can account for hurricanes. Although there is much to be learned yet about the nebula, what we do know can be well explained in terms of existing and well-supported scientific hypotheses about the Galaxy and its contents. Consequently, I am dismayed that it has been brought up in an ID blog. Logically fitting natural phenomena that display order and/or beauty into the scientific superstructure of self-consistent ideas about the universe about us are what makes science so satisfying, and so meaningful. Not everything is a God-induced miracle. Comment by MRMorris — March 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm DaveScot in reply: Quote I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. You tell him, Mr Springer. Quote We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business. Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am Your business appears to be re-interpreting scientific findings to agree with your political/religious agenda. I guess that makes ID just another business failure.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,08:32    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2006,13:43) Quote # I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business. Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am I Worked At DELL. DELL! Do you hear me!?!?! -ds Stevestory: Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,08:55    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/928 Quote March 16, 2006 Biologists Are Not Design Experts Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm I guess DaveScot thinks that the only thing biologists do is taxonomy. Of course BIOLOGISTS ARE EXPERTS in detecting design. They are experts in detecting the design of evolution. They are quite adept at detecting the signs of evolution and hence would be experts of detecting whether or not something is the result of evolution or not. DaveScot is not an expert in anything (except making a fool of himself.) -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

lutsko Posts: 8 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,08:58    Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 17 2006,09:12) He keeps going on about this I wonder how many engineers he has spoken to who study biological systems. In my experience they certainly have a different take on the whole thing. I don't understand the whole "engineers can detect design" thing. Engineers don't detect design - at the most romantic telling, they create design. (Actually, they mostly cut and paste from existing designs or fill out templates.) I see no possible reason to imagine that an engineer (or a former code-jock from dell) has any more expertise at detecting design than a biologist - or a physicist or whatever. Do they go through rigorous training - being present various artifacts about which they declare "designed!" or "not designed" with subsequent verification? Of course not. Its all a lame attempt at an argument from authority. OK bucko - you questioned me so your outta here -ds

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:02    Quote # Joseph, Thanks for the clarification. Just again to clarify, in my life as a biologist I do see evidence of design… DaveScot, Thanks for the clarification… I understand where you are coming from. Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm # Thanks for your post, mattison. It’s always encouraging to hear when biologists are honest about the design they observe in living systems. Comment by Scott — March 17, 2006 @ 18 pm But since, according to DaveScot, mattison0922 is not an expert in such matters, he should keep his mouth shut. If another biologists left a post saying "I'm a biologist and all I ever see is the result of evolution." Then DaveScot would go apeshit on him and tell him to learn his place. When are YOU going to learn YOUR place, eh? I suggest you get back to your repetitive grunt work and leave the decision making to the senior staff.-ds -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:03    Quote (beervolcano @ Mar. 17 2006,14:55) http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/928 Quote March 16, 2006 Biologists Are Not Design Experts Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm I guess DaveScot thinks that the only thing biologists do is taxonomy. Of course BIOLOGISTS ARE EXPERTS in detecting design. They are experts in detecting the design of evolution. They are quite adept at detecting the signs of evolution and hence would be experts of detecting whether or not something is the result of evolution or not. Well, everything in life is the result of evolution. Some biologists discuss the results of natural selection (adaptations). This is not the same thing.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:09    Quote Stevestory: Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot. I would cry, and shake my fist at the cruel universe, and then I would go read Uncommonly Dense. Dembski himself was not as entertaining, but still ridiculous. Remember when we predicted that he would turn his blog over to someone or be forced to close it, because it was taking so much of his time to singlehandedly ban every critic?  I don't think he'll take it back. They're creating a well-culled group of sycophants over there who will say 2+2=4 is a brilliant proof of intelligent design, if Maximum Leader tells them to think this.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:27    9--> Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2006,159) Quote Stevestory: Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot. I would cry, and shake my fist at the cruel universe, and then I would go read Uncommonly Dense. Dembski himself was not as entertaining, but still ridiculous. Remember when we predicted that he would turn his blog over to someone or be forced to close it, because it was taking so much of his time to singlehandedly ban every critic?  I don't think he'll take it back. They're creating a well-culled group of sycophants over there who will say 2+2=4 is a brilliant proof of intelligent design, if Maximum Leader tells them to think this. 2 + 2 does equal 4, pal, I win again.-dt -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:44    Quote # Dave, Thanks for your reply. I did want to briefly comment on some of your points. “Gathering data is repetitious grunt work and does not confer or require expertise in the subject area. It’s usually done by junior level staff. Surely you must be aware of that.” I am not sure what your definition of ‘junior level staff’ is, but - and this could be my personal bias, I don’t necessarily consider post-docs, and Ph.D. candidates to be ‘junior staff,’ especially the former… the latter is arguable. Post-docs are perfectly capable of interpreting their own data and deciding how the data fits in own their own. The same should be true of an advanced candidate. My own personal experience with lab work and data analysis has been a matter of ’sink or swim,’ so to speak. When I use the term ‘biologist’ I am generally considering those with Ph.D.’s or those about to receive Ph.D.’s. Lab techs were not included in my definition. I probably should have clarified this. “Furthermore, data obtained from public funded effort is owned by the public. The gatherer has no more exclusive right to it than anyone else.” I don’t think I claimed anyone had any ‘exclusive right’ to any data. I merely pointed out that commenting on systems that were either in one’s area of expertise, or commenting on evidence based on methodology you are familiar with is only natural, and makes sense. Finally, why are we debating this amongst ourselves? It’s fairly obvious from my statements that I disagree with the position taken by Panda’s Thumb, and I inferred from your statements that you believe more-or-less the same thing. Overall, it would appear that we’re in agreement… so why the rebuttal? Post-docs aren’t just junior staff, they’re entry level. A technician in the same field with 10 years experience will run circles around them. You must not have much experience yourself. Obviously I didn’t entirely agree with you. -ds Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 2:19 pm Davetard is on some kind of crusade to get wrong everything in the world. The process of getting a ph.d is a process of producing new, original research, which advances the field. A person who has achieved a ph.d has demonstrated a degree of expertise. Less than senior scientists, but they are certainly capable of interpreting evidence.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,09:54    Quote Post-docs aren’t just junior staff, they’re entry level. A technician in the same field with 10 years experience will run circles around them. You must not have much experience yourself. Obviously I didn’t entirely agree with you. -ds What what what! That goes entirely against my experience having worked in a lab. I guess that leaves me to wonder, how many labs has DaveScot worked in? However many labs you have worked in plus one, I got five PhDs while working at Dell. It's banhammer time! -ds Edit: darn, beaten. Just like I do to your mom every night. -ds

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,10:08    Shoot, I wanted to be the first with a mother joke. Here's my take: Creationism didn't work. Intelligent design isn't really working. 'Teach the Controversy' isn't really working. Besides, ID still doesn't consist of anything more than 'Some stuff sure looks designed', and they haven't convinced any more than the most pitiful number of scientists. So new strategy? a) if they all agree we aren't science, let's force the law to redefine science, so things like the Book of Genesis qualify. b) destroy the whole concept of 'expertise': *design is in nature *biologists aren't qualified to detect design *therefore, biologists aren't qualified to talk about what appears to be evolution. Note how DS's new theme seems to be that biologists are only fit to be low-paid, anonymous drudges gathering raw data, which they will then hand over to people like Dembski et al, who will be the only people allowed to make pronouncements on its significance. It's kind of fascinating to see these guys trying on a new strategy every week or two... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,10:09    And anyway, is Davetard arguing that people with higher credentials than himself aren't qualified to interpret evidence?  Man, Davetard, think before you type. What am I saying, belay that order. Carry on.

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,12:53    Also, there are a few different types that may be "gathering data" depending on where the gathering is going on. If you're in an academic lab, there are grad students "gathering data" on experiments they designed or designed with the help of their advisor, or post-docs, or fellow group members. This is not gruntwork and usually not mindless and repetitive. A lab tech working in a manufacturing plant (probably not biology) would normally be someone with a bachelor's degree or maybe even a master's. I've met some people like this and there are those with experience that could "run circles around a postdoc" but there are others, even with experience, that I don't think would ever "get it" enough to do any circle running. It just depends on the person. DaveScot makes it sound like all the ideas come from the top down. The grant writing will happen at the top, and the general ideas might be generated there or close to it, but devising experiments and figuring out how to carry them out, from my experience (in chemistry), is done by grad students, postdocs, and labtechs. It's far from mindless gruntwork. Also, when I was a grad student, I went to my adviser with ideas for new research, and he was supportive. We, no I, went after some preliminary results so that he could write up grant proposals based on my ideas. Of course in the experimental design part, there was a lot of back and forth about what would work before we tried some things out. DaveScot has a very limited idea about how research is carried out and what scientists actually do all day.   I think he said something about biology being nothing more than stamp collecting and pipetting. I think he has some sort of intellectual inferiority complex. -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,13:51    Quote # Dave, “Post-docs aren’t just junior staff, they’re entry level. A technician in the same field with 10 years experience will run circles around them. You must not have much experience yourself. Obviously I didn’t entirely agree with you. -ds” This isn’t a question of ‘who will run circles around whom,’ it’s a question of whether or not someone is capable of evaluating/interpreting data for themselves. That a technician with 10 years experience is capable of interpreting data isn’t in question. A post-doc, an advanced candidate, etc., are certainly capable of interpreting data for themselves. This is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that post docs and candidates, author papers, grants, etc. So are we to assume that in your mind the only people capable of really evaluating data are people with Ph.D.’s and say more than 10 years experience over and above their graduate education? What exactly are the criteria YOU believe are necessary to capably interpret data? My level of experience isn’t entirely relevant, as were not talking about me specifically, but ‘biologists’ in general. I merely added my own personal opinion, which for some reason seems to be really annoying to you. Is there something I’ve done/said in particular to instigate this vague ad hominem attack re: my expereince, or is this what everyone should expect? Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 6:20 pm It's not even about him anymore. Dave Springer is bringing shame down upon the entire Springer clan. How can this go on? I don't know, but somehow it does. Update: I forgot to add, mattison0922 is an Intelligent Design Supporter.

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,17:24    Probably not any more... Hee.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,20:10    "Probably not anymore..." I doubt honest scientists alter their conclusions whenever they meet with somebody they find disagreeable.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,20:29    Quote # It has always struck me as odd when engineers who are ID proponents claim “design recognition” as an engineering talent. I am a degreed engineer and have been involved in all phases of professional engineering and I have never heard (outside of ID discussions) of engineers performing “design recognition.” To see if my experience is unusual, I did a lot of Google searches on “design recognition” and on “recognize design” together with “engineering,” “AIAA,” and “IEEE,” and I did not find any mention of “design recognition” as an engineering activity. I’m sure I didn’t reach the entire web, so help me out here. (Hint: It helps to filter out “award.”) If you can find a professional engineering society or an engineering educational institution that has discussed engineers performing “design recognition,” (or the same thing under a different name) then please let me know. If you were really an engineer you would have solved this problem. Try this. -ds Comment by Freelurker — March 17, 2006 @ 6:42 pm (From UD.) Dave2lot, master of the unrelated synonym, appears to claim "reverse engineering" is synonymous with "design detection/recognition". Dave, what has pulling apart someone else's design and reworking it to avoid copyright infringement to do with ID. Your copyright has just been infringed ,pal. Write that down.-ds

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,04:46    I think part of the implication is that you take their work apart to see if they infringed upon your patent. Did they come upon the same solution by chance or by design (stealing)? Of course, I'm not an engineer, so I am deriving this only from the wiki link Dave provided.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,05:57    Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,02:10) "Probably not anymore..." I doubt honest scientists alter their conclusions whenever they meet with somebody they find disagreeable. And your evidence that mattison0922 is a scientist is...what, exactly? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,06:16    Ooh! The great internet challenge ... "Your evidence is what?" I can only go by the evidence available -what he said - just as stevestory did. Are you going to ask stevestory for evidence that mattison is an ID supporter?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,06:31    Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,12:16) Ooh! The great internet challenge ... "Your evidence is what?" I can only go by the evidence available -what he said - just as stevestory did. Are you going to ask stevestory for evidence that mattison is an ID supporter? It's not 'an internet challenge'. One also finds it in academia. If someone makes an unsupported assertion, one can expect to be asked how they know this. It's not complicated. I assume SteveStory is basically making his assumption on previous posts that mattison has made. If mattison has made a lot of posts, discerning that he's an ID supporter should not be a tricky thing. It's not usually a hard thing to figure out. And if mattison is an ID supporter, I have my doubts that he's a scientist in any meaningful sense. He conceivably could be a scientist who's lost his mind, like Davison, but the odds are much better that he's something like an engineer or a computer programmer. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,06:45    And I thought Pandamonium was a parody rather than an accurate portrayal of PT thinking.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,06:47    Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 18 2006,12:45) And I thought Pandamonium was a parody rather than an accurate portrayal of PT thinking. Which part of my statement do you disagree with? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,06:54    I disagree with: your hypocritical questioning of my assertion and not stevestory's; your circular "No real scientist believes in ID" reasoning; your pretentious conflation of your behaviour with that of academia; your bigoted assumption of mattison's professional status; your lazy challenge to a statement without bothering to lift a finger to verify or refute it yourself. That's what I would disagree with.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:16    I disagree with: your hypocritical questioning of my assertion and not stevestory's; What kind of definition of 'hypocritical' are you working off of here? Most people posting at UD are ID supporters, because everyone who's not gets kicked off. Remember? That whole 'no dissent' thing? From all indications, very very few UD regulars are working scientists. If mattison is not an ID supporter, I stand corrected. You make it sound like 'ID supporter' is some kind of Darwinist slander -- thousands of people self-identify that way. your circular "No real scientist believes in ID" reasoning; It's not circular reasoning. It's been made abundantly clear over the past several years. ID is junk science. Sorry if you support ID and this upsets you. your pretentious conflation of your behaviour with that of academia; Huh? Now you're really not making sense. You are the one who called asking for one's evidence for an assertion a, what, a 'great internet challenge'? I'm sorry if you think asking for someone's evidence for something is a trick of some kind, but if so that says a lot about you. your bigoted assumption of mattison's professional status; 'Bigoted'. No, it's based on long observation. (Making tentative judgement calls based on long observation is not 'bigoted'.) Most ID supporters who know a certain amount of scientific jargon turn out to be engineers or computer programmers or such. They can also be mathematicians, lawyers or property managers. Not biologists, that's for sure. This is simply from repeated observation. I am not the first person to make this observation. your lazy challenge to a statement without bothering to lift a finger to verify or refute it yourself. 'Lazy'? Please, it's not *important* enough to justify the effort. Statistically the odds are quite good that Mattison supportsd ID. If you feel defending people at UD is so important, you prove me wrong. You show me what his affiliations are, and if they prove me wrong, I stand corrected. Incidentally, why didnt you challenge stevestory's assertion when he first made it, if it's so important? I do notice that you didn't take exception to my assertion that Davison is insane. I guess some things are just too obvious to dispute. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:39    To be fair, Arden, there are one or two scientists who believe in ID.  One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.  Although I dont know how good his actual scientific research is....

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:58    Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 18 2006,13:39) To be fair, Arden, there are one or two scientists who believe in ID.  One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.  Although I dont know how good his actual scientific research is.... I, um, stand corrected. And one also does find occasional people like physicists who find Jesus and start supporting ID because of that. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,08:28    Quote One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield. He's in Leeds, I think his work in thermodynamics is good, he's a fellow of the royal institute of physics. He explains his purely scientific objection to evolution in this book. Im sure there are several non-religous scientists who support ID, that doesn't change the fact that the movement is primarily a religious one.

Pages: (1000) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard