Posted on 06/08/2009 4:41:47 PM PDT by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Ichy gave you dishonorable mention, but forgot to ping you.
All the best—GGG
Name it. Start here... There are 21 sequences of all single amino acids. Are any of them useful? There are 21 * 20 sequences consisting of length 51 single AA with one odd on the end. Are any of them useful? Move the odd AA in on each of those again resulting in 21*20 sequences. Are any of those useful? So on and so forth.
The astute reader will note that AndrewC has disingenuously demanded that "goodusername" provide a percentage answer, when in the very next sentence (after the snippet AndrewC quoted) "goodusername" stated that a) he didn't know what the percentage was, and b) the key point was that AndrewC didn't know either and that as long as *AndrewC* doesn't know the answer, AndrewC's childish "probability analysis" attempt to attack evolution was dishonest and invalid.
Funny how AC sidestepped that very salient point, isn't it? Funny how he tried to introduce a red herring by demanding that someone else do his own homework for him, isn't it? Funny, but very typical. Red Herrings are his rhetorical specialty.
Ooops...I spoke too soon...didn’t see your responses below.
I didn't forget. AndrewC has repeatedly asked me not to ping him, because he doesn't like to see when I point out the fallacies in his posts. So I don't ping him.
You know that beneficial iterations are saved. You then immediately return to citing statistical methods where beneficial iterations are not saved. Do you even realize what you are doing?
Gee what brought you in out of the woods? Anyway coming from someone who has yet to show me a working cubic function generator after claiming that he could build it is rather humorous. Despite your assertions the numbers do mean something. That is why living things die.
The astute reader will note that AndrewC's response failed to address any of the points I made about why his "analysis" fails on multiple levels. He's just trying to divert the subject away from the identification of his fallacious analogy, rather than admit error and/or attempt an actual rebuttal.
Red Herrings are so tedious.
Come on, AndrewC, just deal head-on with a challenge to your post for a change. Please tell us which of the following best describes your "card deck" post:
1. "I knew it was a bogus analogy for how evolutionary processes actually work, but I did it anyway hoping I wouldn't get caught at it."
2. "I really thought it was a valid comparison, despite having had all of the flaws in that kind of 'analysis' pointed out to me countless times over the years on these threads, including in the very post by Ichneumon years ago that made me so annoyed I told him not to ping me anymore, because I'm a slow learner, but now that it has been explained to me again I realize the error of my post and am flinging Red Herrings far and wide to covery my embarrassment."
3. "It's actually a valid comparison after all, because living things really do reshuffle their genomes entirely, there really is only one living thing on the entire Earth, living things really do not produce offspring, proteins really can't function in alternative forms, and natural selection really doesn't exist at all, I swear, therefore evolution really does work exactly like trying to shuffle a deck of cards and hoping for *one* specific outcome."
4. "I still think it's a valid comparison, because LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Stop dodging for a change.
I'll bet each and every one of them has benefited or knows someone who has benefited from the results of evolutionary science.
Of course he realizes. He'll just never admit it.
When have you *ever* seen an anti-evolutionist admit it?
"Name it", was not meant as a demand, it was meant as a suggestion to ponder over the matter and not dismiss it in the fashion that you do. It does have a bearing on the question, obviously, since merely pouring amino acids into a beaker does not result in much of anything useful to life. There may be many useful configurations of cytochrome C that function, however the numbers being discussed are huge. Cytochrome C is a small protein consisting of 100 or so residues. The universe is thus 21100 which is also expressed as log(21) * 100 = 132.221929. Let's assume that there are 1067 sequences that are viable cytochrome C. 10-65 is rather miniscule.
1067 is fairly liberal since the earth weighs 3.59774777 × 1051 atomic mass units
You know that non-benefical iterations are also saved.
I'm not dodging. You absolutely should know that I refer to Dr. James Shapiro for a reason. The cell computes.
So?
So "beneficial" is a weasel word as I clearly stated.
Not compared to the vast number of protein sequences that are possible. If you are going to make an analogy, make it a good one.
"Yockey for example showed in 1977 that 3.8 x 10^61 proteins of length 100 are functionally equivalent to cytochrome-c."
Care to compare that number to the total number of possible amino acid sequences for the cytochrome c protein? Would that comparison highlight the specificity of the cytochrome c protein too much?
"There's only a single deck of cards in his goofy example -- in biology there are vast numbers of simultaneous "card decks"; in case AndrewC hasn't noticed, there is not only ONE organism/genome in the world."
Adding enormous numbers of complex systems that must work together for life to exist makes your problem worse, not better.
"Perhaps he should leave analysis of evolution to those who actually know anything about it and how it works."
You mean like your misrepresentation of cytochrome c above?
"Many people on the anti-evo side fail to take into account why a process which includes variation, reproduction, and selection is very different from mere card-shuffling, and is capable of much more."
Likewise, many people on the evo-side fail to recognize that the existence of the processes of reproduction, selection and fault-tolerance built-in to the biological processes are not evidence that these processes evolved without engaging in the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison."
Sounds like somebody needs to take their own advice.
Not silly at all, except to people who think such things spring into existence without cause for no reason whatsoever.
" None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein."
Argument from ignorance noted.
Why did you confuse probability calculations with calculating odds?
"Why don't you leave the topic to the folks who actually understand it, like the aveage high school student? When you say laughable stuff like this, you're clearly way out of your depth."
We were talking about calculating odds. You start talking about calculating probabilities. Do you know the difference?
"Sigh. Reading comprehension is your friend."
As is keeping up with the thread. You're behind.
"He just did. Can you attack it without engaging in puerile antics that make a fool of yourself?"
Can you take your own advice?
"If you're wondering why you anti-science guys get laughed off the stage, it's because of behavior like this."
You appear to be at stage one.
Why? Beneficial iterations are what drives evolution. You know, it is called "survival of fittest." I know you have heard of it. It is why evolution survives in courts of law while Creationism is crushed.
That is the just-so story. They are beneficial because they were passed on(circular argument). Genetic research is demonstrating the computing cell, and not a cell which is a "slave" to accidental mutations and an external uncontrollable environment.
I'm not dodging.
...he says as he dodges again, by yet again failing to address any of the issues I pointed out that he was dodging...
You absolutely should know that I refer to Dr. James Shapiro for a reason. The cell computes.
You absolutely should know that "referring to Dr. James Shapiro" does nothing salvage the multiple failures of your bogus "card deck" analogy, nor does dragging in things from other threads as Red Herrings.
Anyway, I've made my point. Your bizarre attempt to question evolution via a contrived card-shuffling fallacy was bogus, not just in one way but in a five-fold Fail, *and* you have no interest in actually facing up to that, instead relying on diversions and misdirection.
“Not silly at all, except to people who think such things spring into existence without cause for no reason whatsoever.”
—How that statement is a response to anything I said is beyond me.
“Argument from ignorance noted.”
—Actually, what YOU are doing is precisely the argument from ignorance fallacy: Unless one can rule out all the other possibilities as invalid, one can’t say that ONE option is the only possibility - to do otherwise IS the argument from ignorance fallacy.
(And actually, we DO know that MANY variations of proteins will work since we all have such variations!)
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.