Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

Originally posted by edmc^2
You mean the nipples and goose bumps?

If you consider these "things" useless then blame your evolution theory.

To me, I think it's there to make you look manly or womanly and to breast feed. Gives me goose bumps just to think of the many possibilities why we or animals have them.

Nipples 3-8, I was speaking about. They never develop fully, and only occasionally can you see them in someone after birth. Superfluous Nipples. Never claimed the developed 1-2 were useless, and if you read my post properly, you wouldn't of thought I did.

Since everyone likes dropping definitions in this thread.

Superfluous - Adjective: Unnecessary, esp. through being more than enough.

And you didn't give an answer for goosebumps. Furred animals have reason for them, we don't.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If it isn't my beliefs it's BLIND CHANCE. Anything I don't like is BLIND CHANCE. BLIND CHANCE BLIND CHANCE BLIND CHANCE.

I paraphrased your the rest of your post so I didn't have to post it all.

Lacking foresight or intelligence doesn't make something blind chance. You know that at this point, I'm sure.

The whole point of natural selection is that it guides evolution by rewarding good mutations(having them pass down) while punishing bad ones(They don't last long). It's a simple rule. Is there a chance element? Yes, mutations are random. However, when only the ones that support the creature pass on, you build something far more capable and complex as time passes.

Ignore that all you want, you're winning a battle; but only against straw.

I ask the same thing I asked dusty. If you really have to close your mind, and intentionally not grasp ideas, if you refuse to give everything a fair and even assessment, how do you manage to be so confident in what you know? If you want to know what's true, don't intentionally misunderstand everything you don't like, just to label the misunderstandings as untrue.

Intelligence =/= Guided or non-random
Other processes besides Intelligence =/= Blind chance.

If you don't want to accept that, there is no conversation here. You can live in denial, instead of giving everything a fair go and seeing if the believes you hold are true or not. Go ahead.

But I'm not going to keep repeating things you just want to ignore.

~
So yes. I'm "Bailing Out".

However, I'll leave you with a recommendation. Someone on the Dawkins engineering video comments recommended a BBC documentary "The Secret life of chaos". I actually watched it, and I agree it's worth watching.

It shows, especially with the programs at the end, what the processes you label as "BLIND CHANCE" really can do. Highly complex systems, not out of blind chance, but out of non-intelligently guided systems, that still are far from being chance.

If you're genuinely interested in reality, check it out. Otherwise, ignore.

So simple question is: IF "evolution is a system without foresight" - do you agree then that BLIND CHANCE is the force behind it?

Because if you say NO - then what's the difference?

WITHOUT FORESIGHT = BLIND CHANCE!

Mr.XYZ - do you agree?

Blind Chance is a force? Please explain how this force works. Science and math would be great. Are you seriously still twisting people's words around to fit your views? Natural selection is NOT random or blind it is necessary for survival. You seem to keep ignoring major parts of evolution to force your view of complexity requiring design, but alas you've completely failed to prove it, just like in the other thread. You need to provide evidence of complexity requiring design or an intelligent "force" behind nature, beyond "OMG its sooo totally complex and I don't know how it could have happened!!" If you could prove a single claim you've made, it would be different, but it's all just your personal beliefs about complexity. Philosophy does not equal fact.

WITHOUT PROOF = NO EVIDENCE

Plus you forget that if god exists outside of spacetime and is all powerful, then he does have fore knowledge of everything that will ever happen, which means "free will" as you put it, is nothing but a charade and every bad thing that has ever happened is completely his fault.... but he loves you. So god created famine, diseases, plagues, extinction level events and everything other negative thing on this planet, yet we're to believe he's intelligent?

Evolution is driven by genetic mutation and natural selection. LOL at blind chance. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD YOU BELIEVE THAT NOTHING EXPLODED FROM NOTHING AND EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING! SO YOU BELIEVE YOUR GRANDPA WAS A PUDDLE OF SLIME??? Sillyness.

reply to post by edmc^2


I can't believe I have to go over this again...

To me this means - unguided unintelligent BLIND CHANCE events.

To make it perfectly clear...NO!!! And once again for good measure: NOOOOOOOOOO!

Scientists explain outcomes by figuring out the causes, and when it comes to evolution or pretty much everything else, there is no intelligence involved. It's all based on chemical, physical, and biological processes that result in certain outcomes. At no point is there any proof that would confirm intelligence. But it's NOT blind chance, because all those outcomes depend on natural forces that interact with eachother and therefore result in very specific outcomes. Scientists can explain perfectly well how those outcomes come to be, and blind chance isn't the driving factor.

And the "objective evidence" is that "nature doesn't require intelligence"!

Thus BLIND CHANCE or UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or ACCIDENT or NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED - is the - designer, creator, force, motivator, actuator or what is it - of life.

Take your pick - anyone will work.

It's not unguided if natural forces like gravity are the cause of outcomes. Of course gravity isn't conscious, but if it makes you feel happy, call it god...still doesn't mean gravity's intelligent. But if it makes you happy to change the meaning of natural forces by calling them god, be my guest. I'm sure thermodynamics would feel honoured

Thread title says: Intelligence in Design - as in intelligence in design in nature. In other words, if one honestly study and look at nature - one will see that there's intelligence present in the DESIGN of/in NATURE.

Those that are UNMISTAKABLY have the hallmarks of intelligence in DESIGN.

And that good sir is called a hypothesis, and one you apparently don't bother backing up with objective evidence. Mountains look designed, but we can explain perfectly well how they came to be...no intelligence required. Humans look designed, yet we can explain how they evolved without the slightest shred of evidence suggesting intelligence. The Grand Canyon looks designed, yet we can explain it perfectly fine....and the same goes for caterpillars, frogs, and a ton of other stuff. Not a single time is intelligence a key driver.

Then of course you're blind to them - you can't see them - because to you they are all products of

BLIND CHANCE or is itt UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or is it "ACCIDENT" or is "NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED?

You are calling the interaction of natural forces (physical forces, biological processes, chemical processes) blind chance because you obviously don't understand them. They constantly interact, and result in the outcomes you consider designed. We can explain those outcomes perfectly through the interaction of physical forces, and there's no "blind chance" or "magic (aka god)" involved...at least there's zero objective evidence proving it.

You are essentially preaching, because your posts are void of real evidence

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

OK -HappyBunny, like you said -

... it's wrong to think that every mutation is beneficial for us.

So we both know that cancer cells are mutant cells - and they are deadly MUTANT cells - nothing good comes out of them.

Question to you is - at what proportion does mutation becomes beneficial to evolution?

I just said that not every trait is beneficial. And cancer cells are mutant CELLS. They affect an individual, not the species.

Where does this idea that DNA is benevolent come from? Between this and the other thread, the idea that nature is some source of good and plenty without struggle and risk is really evident--and it's wrong. Life on Earth is grudging at best and all organisms have to scrape out their existence in a world that doesn't want to let them.

Also since mutations are by its nature a tearing down of normal cells - how can it produce a better species if the result is a mutant species?

Too many changes and it becomes a new species. Too few and you sacrifice adaptability. Earth and the conditions on it aren't static, and organisms must adapt or they die.

And is the mutant species a new species or is it just a variation of the same species?

Where did you get that idea?

Different species can't mate with each other and produce viable offspring. A species is the biggest gene pool available to organisms under natural conditions. But the line between different species is often blurred. If you have a hybrid (which happens a lot), is it the same species or a new species? Geographic isolation and reduction in gene flow are just two of the reasons speciation occurs. But there are several types of speciation, like allopatric, parapatric, peripatric, etc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Again with the "blind chance"??? You're incredible disingenuous by once again ignoring the fact that science doesn't say it was "blind chance"...they explain how it happened by backing up their claims with objective evidence, something you haven't done once in this entire thread

Yet in your own words:

Of course people have already told you dozens of times that nature doesn't require intelligence

To me this means - unguided unintelligent BLIND CHANCE events.

That is, according to you and others evolution theory:

explain how it happened by backing up their claims with objective evidence, something you haven't done once in this entire thread

And the "objective evidence" is that "nature doesn't require intelligence"!

Thus BLIND CHANCE or UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or ACCIDENT or NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED - is the - designer, creator, force, motivator, actuator or what is it - of life.

Take your pick - anyone will work.

edit:

How about you post some proof of your claim that nature requires intelligence?

Thread title says: Intelligence in Design - as in intelligence in design in nature. In other words, if one honestly study and look at nature - one will see that there's intelligence present in the DESIGN of/in NATURE.

Those that are UNMISTAKABLY have the hallmarks of intelligence in DESIGN.

AND Biomimicry is a good example of such things, but since you believe that:

"nature doesn't require intelligence"

Then of course you're blind to them - you can't see them - because to you they are all products of

BLIND CHANCE or is itt UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or is it "ACCIDENT" or is "NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED?

edit on 11-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: edit

Go look up chaos theory. And while you're at it, check out nonlinear chaotic systems.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Go look up chaos theory. And while you're at it, check out nonlinear chaotic systems.

Do you know that there are several types of INFORMATION?

I'll just name three here:


This includes Chaos Theory - where there's data but the information is meaningless.

like the formation of snow flakes or mountains.

Anyway here's video that will explain it in detail (not sure if you've seen it already from my other thread)



Question is where does biomimicry fall in your theory?

Chaos or meaningful Information?

Let me throw this in here as well...

reply to post by HappyBunny

.... Life on Earth is grudging at best and all organisms have to scrape out their existence in a world that doesn't want to let them.

Interesting that you say that because life never started that way - a struggle. Life actually started in a good path - man was supposed to be the caretaker of his home - the earth. Beautify it starting from a small location called the Garden of Eden. But because of wanting to be independent from their creator things went from bad to worse. Here we are at the end of the line and mankind has finally found the secrets of the universe. Sadly, there's no way going back as the technology to destroy life as we know it is at the hands of untrustworthy - imperfect man.

Just a matter of time until someone pulls the trigger and poof life is destroyed. Of course to evolutionists that's the way life was meant to be - survival of the fittest. Unfortunately - there's only one planet and were all in it.

Happily to believers of Creation like me - as things get's worst - the stronger my belief becomes for the the things that are happening confirms and validates my belief of a loving Creator.

That someday - all of the misery that man brought upon himself will come to an end. Those who will humbly listen will inherit the earth - those who are unwilling will forever be gone like the dust.

Sadly - evolution theory has nothing to offer other than what you said:

.... Life on Earth is grudging at best and all organisms have to scrape out their existence in a world that doesn't want to let them.

That's your legacy - forever painfully evolving - survival of the fittest - until life stops to a halt.

Like you said:

Too many changes and it becomes a new species. Too few and you sacrifice adaptability. Earth and the conditions on it aren't static, and organisms must adapt or they die.

But back to Q:

... is the mutant species a new species or is it just a variation of the same species?

Where did you get that idea?

Different species can't mate with each other and produce viable offspring. A species is the biggest gene pool available to organisms under natural conditions. But the line between different species is often blurred. If you have a hybrid (which happens a lot), is it the same species or a new species? Geographic isolation and reduction in gene flow are just two of the reasons speciation occurs. But there are several types of speciation, like allopatric, parapatric, peripatric, etc.

I'm surprise you don't know where the idea came from?

That mutations provide the "raw materials" for evolution.

They are in textbooks, in evolution websites, taught by professors and many more avenues.

Even the The World Book Encyclopedia

stated that:

“Mutations . . . .are the basis of evolution,”

Now just to quote one famous proponent of evolution:

Dr. Carl Sagan, he stated:

“Mutations:

sudden changes in heredity - breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.” - Cosmos

Without mutation they say - evolution cannot happen.

So how could you not know this as an evolutionists?

reply to post by edmc^2


I really hope you realize that everything you posted above is merely you stating your BELIEF. A belief that isn't based on rationality and logic. You are essentially preaching

reply to post by MrXYZ



To me this means - unguided unintelligent BLIND CHANCE events.

To make it perfectly clear...NO!!! And once again for good measure: NOOOOOOOOOO!

Why the fear to admit the obvious MrXYZ?

You know as well as any thinking reader / member of ATS know - that BLIND CHANCE - means NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED.

So why the denial?

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Lacking foresight or intelligence doesn't make something blind chance. You know that at this point, I'm sure.

Even a non - English speaking person like me knows that "Lacking foresight or intelligence" means someone or in this case something lacks the ability to intelligently guide. Thus a person or in this case the "thing" you call "natural selection" lacks the foresight or intelligence to guide how things "evolved" thus it blindly guides its creations by chance.

Simple as that - it's blind chance otherwise you'll have to admit that "natural selection" is intelligent.

But of course in order for you to admit this - you'll have to modify the theory again.

Which I think is what you're trying to do based on what you said next:

The whole point of natural selection is that it guides evolution by rewarding good mutations(having them pass down) while punishing bad ones(They don't last long). It's a simple rule. Is there a chance element? Yes, mutations are random. However, when only the ones that support the creature pass on, you build something far more capable and complex as time passes.

Which contradicts with what you're implying, that - it "natural selection" lacks "foresight" and "intelligence".

So which one is it then? Is "natural selection" lack "foresight" or "intelligence" or both?

Or is it intelligent enuff that it's able to "... guide[s] evolution by rewarding good mutations(having them pass down) while punishing bad ones(They don't last long)"? You know like an Entity.

Know what I mean?

Either way you're still faced with the same question - is natural selection a blind process or not?

If it's intelligent - is it an entity? If not is it a force? If not what is it then?

Did this "intelligent natural selection" always existed or did it have a beginning?

But alas evolution theory does not go this far.

As for:

I ask the same thing I asked dusty. If you really have to close your mind, and intentionally not grasp ideas, if you refuse to give everything a fair and even assessment, how do you manage to be so confident in what you know? If you want to know what's true, don't intentionally misunderstand everything you don't like, just to label the misunderstandings as untrue.

Ahh but I did not close my mind - that's why when evolution theory is subjected to the facts it fails to provide satisfactory answers.

But it's good on assumptions and sorry to say this - unclear reasoning like:

Intelligence =/= Guided or non-random
Other processes besides Intelligence =/= Blind chance.

So is "natural selection" an intelligent entity?

Of course not - what do you think?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I really hope you realize that everything you posted above is merely you stating your BELIEF. A belief that isn't based on rationality and logic. You are essentially preaching

hmmm...

and this not like a belief or preaching?

.... Life on Earth is grudging at best and all organisms have to scrape out their existence in a world that doesn't want to let them.

edit:

but what say you:


Without mutation they say - evolution cannot happen.

Do you agree?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Scientists explain outcomes by figuring out the causes, and when it comes to evolution or pretty much everything else, there is no intelligence involved. It's all based on chemical, physical, and biological processes that result in certain outcomes. At no point is there any proof that would confirm intelligence. But it's NOT blind chance, because all those outcomes depend on natural forces that interact with eachother and therefore result in very specific outcomes. Scientists can explain perfectly well how those outcomes come to be, and blind chance isn't the driving factor.

I rest my case - evolution is based on unguided, unintelligent process - ergo chance events!

Since there's nothing intelligent guiding the chemicals, physical as well biological things other than "natural forces" to " interact with each other" then what other conclusion can one arrive at other than - let's all say it one more time: BLIND CHANCE or CHANCE EVENTS?

Unless you want to contradict yourself by saying that "natural forces" like "natural selection" is intelligent?

Are you?

So to you - the DNA code is just a product of blind "natural forces"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64f1218645d4.jpg[/atsimg]

That is, all this information that's in a substance called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), most of which is located in a small compartment in the cell known as the nucleus is just a product of "unintelligent natural forces" - nothing more nothing less.

OK - I got it.

Oh - btw - mountains like snow flakes will always be mountains or hills or peaks same as snow flakes - they will not evolve into something else.

Of course snow when it melts becomes water or steam when heated - but it is not evolving unless you also want to claim that it is.

reply to post by MrXYZ

It's not unguided if natural forces like gravity are the cause of outcomes. Of course gravity isn't conscious, but if it makes you feel happy, call it god...still doesn't mean gravity's intelligent. But if it makes you happy to change the meaning of natural forces by calling them god, be my guest. I'm sure thermodynamics would feel honoured

What? whose saying that gravity is "conscious" or "intelligent"? You made this up.

No one is saying that 'xept you - just like mountains - they are not intelligent.

But what I'm saying is, just like the engineers and scientist who study Biomimicry - they see that there's intelligence behind them.

Like the following research:

[AIR CONDITIONING.

Modern technology cools many homes. But long before, termites also cooled theirs, and they still do. Their nest is in the center of a large mound. From it, warm air rises into a network of air ducts near the surface. There stale air diffuses out the porous sides, and fresh cool air seeps in and descends into an air chamber at the bottom of the mound. From there it circulates into the nest. Some mounds have openings at the bottom where fresh air comes in, and in hot weather, water brought up from underground evaporates, thus cooling the air. How do millions of blind workers coordinate their efforts to build such ingeniously designed structures?

Biologist Lewis Thomas answers:

“The plain fact that they exhibit something like a collective intelligence is a mystery.”

AIRPLANES.

The design of airplane wings has benefited over the years from the study of the wings of birds. The curvature of the bird’s wing gives the lift needed to overcome the downward pull of gravity. But when the wing is tilted up too much, there is the danger of stalling. To avoid a stall, the bird has on the leading edges of its wings rows, or flaps, of feathers that pop up as wing tilt increases. These flaps maintain lift by keeping the main airstream from separating from the wing surface.

Still another feature for controlling turbulence and preventing “stalling out” is the alula, a small bunch of feathers that the bird can raise up like a thumb.

At the tips of the wings of both birds and airplanes, eddies form and they produce drag. Birds minimize this in two ways. Some, like swifts and albatross, have long, slender wings with small tips, and this design eliminates most of the eddies. Others, like big hawks and vultures, have broad wings that would make big eddies, but this is avoided when the birds spread out, like fingers, the pinions at the ends of their wings. This changes these blunt ends into several narrow tips that reduce eddies and drag.

Airplane designers have adopted many of these features. The curvature of wings gives lift. Various flaps and projections serve to control airflow or to act as braking devices. Some small planes lessen wing-tip drag by the mounting of flat plates at right angles to the wing surface. Airplane wings, however, still fall short of the engineering marvels found in the wings of birds.



ANTIFREEZE
UNDERWATER BREATHING APPARATUS
CLOCKS
PAPER
COMPASSES
LIGHTING
DESALINATION
ELECTRICITY
SUBMARINES
THERMOMETERS
ROTARY ENGINE
SONAR
JET PROPULSION ]]

there's more but you SEE the point - i hope.

If not then these people might.

From the OP:

Imagine nature's most elegant ideas organized by design and engineering function, so you can enter “remove salt from water” and see how mangroves, penguins, and shorebirds desalinate without fossil fuels. Now imagine you can meet the people who have studied these organisms, and together you can create the next great bio-inspired solution. That’s the idea behind AskNature, the online inspiration source for the Biomimicry community. Think of it as your home habitat—whether you’re a biologist who wants to share what you know about an amazing organism, or a designer, architect, engineer, or chemist looking for planet-friendly solutions. AskNature is where biology and design cross-pollinate, so bio-inspired breakthroughs can be born.

Need I say more - but as expected - you will say.....no INTELLIGENCE required!

reply to post by MrXYZ

Humans look designed, yet we can explain how they evolved without the slightest shred of evidence suggesting intelligence.

Now that's one funny statement if I ever read one!!

Only from the mind of an evolutionists....

bares to be repeated!!

Humans look designed, yet we can explain how they evolved without the slightest shred of evidence suggesting intelligence.

No explanation needed.

But pls don't tell that to Ms Kidman! She wouldn't like it.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

To me this means - unguided unintelligent BLIND CHANCE events.

To make it perfectly clear...NO!!! And once again for good measure: NOOOOOOOOOO!

Why the fear to admit the obvious MrXYZ?

You know as well as any thinking reader / member of ATS know - that BLIND CHANCE - means NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED.

So why the denial?

Because apart from you, no one's saying "blind chance" is the cause of life

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I really hope you realize that everything you posted above is merely you stating your BELIEF. A belief that isn't based on rationality and logic. You are essentially preaching

Same goes to you, although you pretend with all your might that it is somehow the truth.

reply to post by vasaga


No, I it's not the same. I back up my claims with objective evidence, he claims there's intelligence behind natural forces without ever presenting the slightest shred of evidence

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence. Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started. Remember, EVIDENCE, not some general argument.. Btw, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily opposites...

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well, DNA has prescriptive information. The only way we know that that comes into being, is by intelligence. Until you can show evidence that this type of information can arise by undirected natural processes, intelligent design stands as the best explanation for how life started. Remember, EVIDENCE, not some general argument.. Btw, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily opposites...

You're falling into the God of the gaps trap. Just because we don't know everything about DNA doesn't mean you can substitute that lack of knowledge with magic (aka god). The "god did it" track record is abysmal