Biomimicry: why the world is full of intelligent design (they admit ID, then credit evolution!!!)

Telegraph ^ | June 8, 2009 | Sanjida O'Connell

[GodGunsGuts]

Biomimicry: why the world is full of intelligent design

Forget human ingenuity - the best source of ideas for cutting-edge technology might be in nature, according to experts in 'biomimicry'

We humans like to think we're pretty good at design and technology – but we often forget that Mother Nature had a head start of 3.6 million years. Now, the way that geckoes climb walls, or hummingbirds hover, is at the centre of a burgeoning industry: biomimicry, the science of "reverse-engineering" clever ideas from the natural world....

[AndrewC]

I challenged two of your pieces of 'info' on statistics which were incorrect.

No you didn't. This is what I posted. "There are 52 ! = 8.06581752 × 10⁶⁷ sequences. "

This is what you said I posted in your words.

"I haven't checked your math but that would be the same odds for any sequence."

You will note that 8.06581752 × 10⁶⁷ is not "odds".

odds

  /ɒdz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [odz] Show IPA

–noun (usually used with a plural verb)

1.	the probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else: The odds are that it will rain today.

2.	the ratio of probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else.

3.	this ratio used as the basis of a bet; the ratio by which the bet of one party to a wager exceeds that of the other, granted by one of two betting opponents to equalize the chances favoring one of them: The odds are two-to-one that it won't rain today.

[ColdWater]

Thank you for now agreeing that you were reference the odds.

[AndrewC]

Thank you for now agreeing that you were reference the odds.

Thanks for blatantly demonstrating that you are an idiot troll. Sequences are not ratios.

[ColdWater]

Sequences are not ratios.

You said it was one of many sequences. One of many is a ratio and it can be expressed as odds.

[ColdWater]

This is what I posted. "There are 52 ! = 8.06581752 × 1067 sequences. "

I hate to break it to you but 52! is WAY bigger than 419.42251104!

[AndrewC]

You said it was one of many sequences.

Now is your chance to find that in any of my posts on this thread. Let me give you a hint, use control F then type in those words("one of many"). You will quickly find who uses that term on this thread.

P.S. You now prove you are a liar on top of being a troll.

[ColdWater]

“Shuffle a deck of cards fairly. Now check to see if the deck is in order with aces to kings for each suit and the suits in club, diamonds, hearts and spades sequence. Keep shuffling and checking until the deck is in the described order. There are 52 ! = 8.06581752 × 1067”

Sure seems like you are taking one sequence of many ...

[AndrewC]

Sure seems like you are taking one sequence of many

And taking one of many is not a ratio nor is it stating that it is one of many. I took a drink of water today. That action is certainly is not a ratio. But because you are a troll you will ignore that fact.

[ColdWater]

I took a drink of water today. That action is certainly is not a ratio.

Taking one drink of water in one day is

1/1 = 1 (or 100%).

[AndrewC]

Taking one drink of water in one day is

So you think you proved that when something happens, it happens. Brilliant as dimwatt bulb. No taking a drink of water today is taking a drink of water today not a ratio. I drank water more than once. Tell me how many times.

[allmendream]

No, a mouse is less a rat like creature looking at DNA, than a chimp is a human like creature; by a factor of TEN.

So you propose there would be no “constraints” on a mouse changing into a rat, yet imagine some undefined “constraints” on an ape changing its DNA a small % and ONE TENTH of the genetic distance you seem to think would be so easy to bridge between mouse and rat.

What would be your basis for that assumption?

[allmendream]

You seem to confuse a location with an increased probability of mutation as a location that somehow MUST be mutated every time or conditionally.

That is simply not the case.

If we ran error prone DNA polymerase over the exact same genome under the exact same stress, there would be near infinite variety of mutations over the entire genome, NOT the same mutations.

Error prone DNA polymerase is used in industrial applications to produce GENETIC VARIATION.

How would variation be produced if specific mutations are a direct programmed response.

And lactose gene turning on or off is not through mutation, but through the use of the most highly studied gene operating system, the lac operon.

[CottShop]

[[Sequences are not ratios.]]

I sequenced a ratio once, but still couldn’t meet my quota

[AndrewC]

You seem to confuse a location with an increased probability of mutation as a location that somehow MUST be mutated every time or conditionally.

No, not every time, but then what is a hot spot?

How would variation be produced if specific mutations are a direct programmed response.

Well, gee how many ways are there to skin a cat? Do you suppose that other chemicals, radiation, ultra-violet light, water, oxygen, ozone, nitric oxide, benzene, chrysene, gamma rays, alpha rays, etc. etc. could cause damage of some sort?

And lactose gene turning on or off is not through mutation, but through the use of the most highly studied gene operating system, the lac operon.

The ebgA gene is not the lactose gene. Its true function is not known. It just gets hit in two spots when the lactose gene is disabled and the SOS response is elicited.

[ColdWater]

I drank water more than once. Tell me how many times.

X is the amount of water you drank in the previous reference. XBAR is the average of all the drinks. XTOT = total amount drank.

The total number of drinks is:

N = XTOT / XBAR

The ratio of the first to total number is:

1 / N.

[ColdWater]

No taking a drink of water today is taking a drink of water today not a ratio.

?

[Fichori]

“No, a mouse is less a rat like creature looking at DNA, than a chimp is a human like creature; by a factor of TEN.” [excerpt]

Only because they are using chimp data fudged to look like human data.

Seriously, you have no objectivity.

[AndrewC]

.... Your useless blather ...

I asked "Tell me how many times." You did not do so. Keep proving that you are a trolling idiot.

[AndrewC]

?

!

[Dutchboy88]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

And in one sentence you have managed to peddle the kind of doublespeak that evolutionists are known for. Read some of the propaganda folks of your ilk foist upon a thinking world. After you are familiar with your own claims, give us a call.