ICR credits this image on their site.
Note: This recent article is an important discussion of reverse engineering, university research, the interpretation of scientific data, and the sociology of group-thought.
Posted on 03/14/2014 8:27:23 AM PDT by fishtank
Reverse Engineering Reveals Ideal Propulsion Design
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. *
In a recent analysis of how dozens of species propel their bodies through air and water, a collaborative team found not only ideal design but also common design.1
To successfully propel themselves through water or air, animals must possess structures that can produce thrust. Birds fly gracefully, and fish and whales glide through water with what appear to be unforced, easy motions. Wings and fins seem to fit these animals' environments so precisely that an observer could deduce these appendages are designed for efficient thrust in air and water, respectively.
An insightful new report from researchers representing Roger Williams University, Providence College, Indiana University-Bloomington, the Marine Biological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Harvard, and Texas A&M-Galveston applied engineering analyses to the complex ways animals move in a fluid environment. The team studied animal subjects from 59 diverse species and their findings were published in Nature Communications.1
Reverse engineering reveals ideal propulsion structure, shape, and performance
Using reverse engineering, the study authors discovered that vastly different creatures all propel themselves using the same basic mechanics.2 Contributing researcher Nathan Johnson of Texas A&M-Galveston commented to the Houston Chronicle on their surprising findings: "We found insects, birds, bats, whales, fish, dolphins, [and] even smaller molluscs are all using the same basic mechanics."3 Results showed that, "comparison of video sequences…for 59 animal species demonstrates clear, replicable patterns of spanwise propulsor bending during steady motion, which are similar over a broad range of animal sizes, fluid media and taxonomic groups."1
The team was able to extract exact measurements of the organisms' propulsion structures. Unlike the control surfaces of man-made wings and rudders, animal wings, fins, and flukes intentionally bend in a certain place as part of the propelling action during each phase of motion. The researchers' reverse engineering analysis surprisingly showed that, for all of the species studied, the wing, fin, or fluke would bend at essentially the same spot, which was at about two-thirds of the way out toward the tip.
Additional measurements found that the maximum degree of bend for the wings or fin tips was also very close for all species, averaging about 26 degrees. A plot of the bending distance versus the degree of flexion looked even more similar across all species. The incredibly comparable movement patterns of wings and fins in very dissimilar organisms is quite remarkable since these features are composed of diverse materials and constructed in some fundamentally different ways.
Further design analysis identified that the common point and degree of bending for these different organisms matched very energy-efficient thrust production. Fluid-dynamic tests revealed that the degree of bending in the design of these propelling structures greatly enhanced water or air circulation coming from the tips of the wings or fins (called "vortex circulation") that also enhanced thrust pressures. The study authors wrote, "Vortex circulation, thrust production and efficiency vary with flexibility, suggesting that the flexibility of animal propulsors may be tuned to maximize thrust production and efficiency by controlling vorticity associated with propulsor bending."1
Reverse engineering in this study stands out clearly, but in reality, the discovery of all biological function is essentially reverse engineering. If engineering analysis can clarify biological function, then why not try to use it to explain the origin of that function?
Explanations for ideal propulsion structure origins: mystical versus design-based
So how did a wide array of animal groups come to possess perfect flexibility in their wings and fins that optimizes their flying and swimming?
Johnson told the Houston Chronicle, "The best reason we can think that these similarities are there in nature is that they are the most energy efficient."3 Though they used design analysis to discover functions, the study authors apparently eliminated the possibility of a Designer as the cause of these similar, energy-efficient structures in diverse organisms. Was it because of evolutionary presuppositions?
Removing God as a cause leaves evolutionists in the position of explaining structures that are clearly intelligence-based without invoking an intelligent cause. Every time this occurs, they appeal to a magical, god-like agency somewhere in nature. The Houston Chronicle reported, "A magic formula of physics is propelling animals across the planet, from birds and sharks to jellyfish, according to a new discovery by researchers at Texas A&M Univeristy [sic]."3
In their Nature Communications report, the team pondered, "What factor(s) drive natural selection to converge on highly constrained bending kinematics across such a wide range of animal groups?"1 They speculated that natural selection was driven to converge on similar design by the quest for energy efficiency. This inevitably leads to affirming a substitute for the real Creator: The study "shows just how advanced Mother Nature's designs are compared to human engineering," wrote the Chronicle. "Scientists hope their findings will help technology catch up with millions of years of evolution."3
Invoking "magic" and "Mother Nature" irrationally departs from the clarity of engineering analysis by moving into areas outside of detection by human senses or instruments and beyond the realm of human understanding.
In contrast, as early as 1802, William Paley, a pioneer of design-based explanations, compared living things to human-engineered machines. He postulated that the origins of similar features in diverse creatures could be explained in the way man-made machine designs are copied and uniquely modified for similar uses.4
Dr. Henry Morris attributed design to an actual designer, writing, "In the organic realm, there are many similarities between different kinds of plants and animals….Creationists interpret similarities as evidence of common creative planning and design….Creationists explain them as structures designed by the Creator for specific purposes, so that when similar purposes were involved, similar structures were created."5
Paley's and Morris' explanations are consistent with the engineering analysis of the Nature Communications research group and link to everyday observations of the origin of design. These explanations also rightfully ascribe credit for the ideal and common design in creatures to their Creator.
References
Lucas, K. N. et al. 2014. Bending rules for animal propulsion. Nature Communications. 5:3293. Reverse engineer. transitive verb. To disassemble and examine or analyze in detail (as a product or device) to discover the concepts involved in manufacture usually in order to produce something similar. Merriam-Webster. Posted on merriam-webster.com, accessed March 13, 2013.
Alexander, H. A&M study finds magic formula of physics moves every kind of animal on earth. Houston Chronicle. Posted on chron.com February 20, 2014, accessed March 14, 2014.
Paley, W. 1802. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, 2nd ed. London: R. Faulder, chapter xii, 227-258.
Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 69-70.
*Dr. Guliuzza is ICR's National Representative.
Article posted on March 14, 2014.
ICR credits this image on their site.
Note: This recent article is an important discussion of reverse engineering, university research, the interpretation of scientific data, and the sociology of group-thought.
It’s pretty hard to beat a billion years of evolution and adaptation in optimizing a design.
Oh, sure...No doubt they designed themselves...
Not an engineer, are you?
We have been reverse engineering “other things” as well....
That is all I am gonna say....
It’s pretty hard to beat a billion years of evolution and adaptation in optimizing a design.
*When talking about billions of years, their all reaching this exact same level of evolution from different paths at what is given the time frame, the exact same instant, is worth meditating on, regarding the idea of an intelligent designer.
Their = they’re
or there, or thar or thor
Well, as a matter of fact, I’ve been a successful engineer for over 30 years. I’ve adapted natural designs to my product needs on multiple occasions.
Your comment about ‘designing themselves’ shows a shocking ignorance of the basic principles of natural selection.
Fascinating read ... Thank You.
I’m an engineer and I agree with the poster.
Reverse engineering = copying nature
Weighing next to nothing and regenerating wear and tear by cell division are no doubt helpful and a bit impractical to translate to economically useful machinery.
With the exception of times of dramatic change, one will find most of the living things are exquisitely adapted to their current environment, no matter the year.
Every dinosaur that ever lived over a period of 155 million years was a near perfect adaptation to the times. Us mammals lived under foot, as small, insignificant burrowers living in the shadows and night. When things abruptly changed, one very bad day at Chixulub most likely, it was too much for anything on the surface or near the surface of the water to survive. (We focus on the dinosaurs, but the real marker is the extinction of billions upon billions of foraminifera at the K-T boundary.)
Still, nothing, no land animal larger than a house cat survived.
And then what happened? The arms race for resources and to avoid being a resource started over with mouse-sized burrowing mammals. The swifter, the bigger, the smarter survived and had litters of pups/kits who were, on the average, just a little bigger, a little swifter, had a little better digestion, a little better camouflage than their parents' generation.
We can watch this progression through an unbroken chain of small changes as a dog-sized short-limbed multi-toed critter becomes better and better adapted to a life on the run as a modern horse. If you were dropped in anywhere on this path, you would marvel at how well adapted it was to the environment and to avoiding it's predators.
Long story short, they is nothing remarkable that everything you see is well adapted, they, every single one of them, are the sons and daughters of the best adapted parents in every generation.
They are the children of survivors.
Nanotech and self healing plastics...
Sorry I have belief in intelligent design and this is not an argument for intelligent design..it argues for a common starting point coping with a common problem...intelligent design is strengthen by diversity in design showing a non common path...evolution argues for a common starting point so common evolved path to a problem solution
Long story short, they is nothing remarkable that everything you see is well adapted, they, every single one of them, are the sons and daughters of the best adapted parents in every generation.
*when speaking of the time frames involved, this word applies.
Umm, no..
I am also an engineer and a very successful program manager and quite familiar with natural selection. I just don’t believe in accidents or randomness in successful systems.
You shouldn’t either.
I’m probably a better engineer and I don’t
Not sure what you think makes you a better engineer...rather presumptuous of you.
“Though they used design analysis to discover functions, the study authors apparently eliminated the possibility of a Designer as the cause of these similar, energy-efficient structures in diverse organisms”
Nothing unusual here. All biological machinery, programming and processes at every level have to be described in mechanical terms because they are in fact machines. Furthermore, practically every machine mankind “invents” is already present in some biological form in some biological creature. And not only that, it’s only until AFTER man has “invented” a particular kind of machine is man then able to recognize that which was previously a mystery in biology as being an example of the machine man just “invented”.
And while anyone would be considered insane if they proclaimed that all of man’s machines built in all of man’s existence were merely an accidental product of “nature” with no possibility of an intelligent designer or builder, the official, central dogma of “science” is a similar proclamation that all life in Earth’s biosphere (a situation a trillion times a trillion more complex than man’s puny accomplishments) is merely the mindless, capricious product of a grotesquely improbable and accidental “nature”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.