Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
who did it first?
05-08-2011, 07:47 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2011 07:49 PM by kaleb.)
Post: #1
who did it first?
This thread is really the continuation of a debate with Tantilla from a previous thread, but also to explore how science has made it possible for us to take from nature, elements and design features that can be used to make or improve many things that can be used in every day life.

Many atheist will attempt to say that Design had NO process in life coming to be, but when one reflects on these complex abilities of living creatures that human inventors have attempted to copy, does it seem reasonable to believe that they happened by chance alone? And happened, not just once, but many times in unrelated creatures? Does it seem reasonable to think that chance alone could create what it later took gifted and highly intelligent men (bio-mimetics) to copy?

Here are a few examples of what intelligent man has copied from nature, & its supposedly "unintelligent" originator.

AIR CONDITIONING. Today most of us have air conditioners in our homes. But where did we get the idea from?

A termites 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. Think about this: How do millions of blind workers coordinate their efforts to build such ingeniously designed structures?

Is it by chance they got this wisdom, or were they programmed with it?
We copy from nature, so if the copy requires a designer, what about the original?

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.

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.
Now Bio-mimetics are looking to the humpback whale, and incorperating the whales flipper design in new airplane construction because of its unique design properties.

Once again we take from nature which supposedly came about with no design or intelligence involved, to make "COPIES" which require design, purpose, and high intelligence to make!

If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?

DESALINATION. In Australia we are building de-sal plants in many states as we come out of a 10 year drought, and look to sure up our water supply. Mangrove trees have roots that suck up seawater, but filter it through membranes that remove the salt. Sea birds, such as gulls, pelicans, cormorants, albatross and petrels, drink seawater and by means of glands in their heads remove the excess salt that gets into their blood. Also penguins, sea turtles and sea iguanas drink salt water, removing the excess salt.
By seeking to use the design features found in nature in particular how different animals and plants purify the water, man can draw water from the sea, and make it fit for human consumption.

Once again, we copy from nature, but WHO really deserves the credit?

INCUBATORS. Man makes incubators to hatch eggs, but in this he is a latecomer. Sea turtles and some birds lay their eggs in the warm sand for incubation. Other birds will lay their eggs in the warm ashes of volcanoes for hatching. Sometimes alligators will cover their eggs with decaying vegetable matter to produce heat. But in this the male mallee bird is the expert. He digs a big hole, fills it with vegetable matter and covers it with sand. The fermenting vegetation heats the mound, the female mallee bird lays an egg in it weekly for up to six months, and all that time the male checks the temperature by sticking his beak into the mound. By adding or removing sand, even in weather from below freezing to very hot, he keeps his incubator at 92 degrees Fahrenheit.

SONAR. The sonar of bats and dolphins surpasses man’s copy of it. Even in a darkened room with fine wires strung across it, bats fly about and never touch the wires. Their supersonic sound signals bounce off these objects and return to the bats, who then make use of echolocation to avoid them. Porpoises and whales also do the same thing in water.


We are always looking to nature to improve or make new things, and more often than not, natures designs are far superior to our crude copies.
So then, if we, intelligent people, copy from nature, indeed use its design features to do make and improve so many things, how is it possible to conclude that nature (the original) what we copy from, has NO intelligent designer, whilst giving full glory and acclaim to the engineer who designs a safer more efficient aircraft wing? or the researchers studying abolone shells for their shock absorbing properties?

If a manufacturer who copies someone else's design but FAILS to acknowledge or credit the designer may be viewed as criminal.

So if the copy ( what we make based on what we take from nature) requires an intelligent designer... What about the original (nature itself)?


For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you, declares Jehovah, thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.- Jeremiah 29:11
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 05:25 AM
Post: #2
RE: who did it first?
So your saying K, that if Velociraptors didn't have a wire spoked wheel front and back, we wouldn't have bicycles?

????????????????
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 05:51 AM
Post: #3
RE: who did it first?
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  Many atheist will attempt to say that Design had NO process in life coming to be, but when one reflects on these complex abilities of living creatures that human inventors have attempted to copy, does it seem reasonable to believe that they happened by chance alone?
there is one major guiding factor in evolution, it is called natural selection, genetically, organisms undergo random changes, but the ones that are beneficial are selected out. Its kind of what the video pointed out, if you change things randomly, and you filter out the individuals that have the best adaptations, than over time you will have things that look like engineering masterpieces.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:   And happened, not just once, but many times in unrelated creatures? Does it seem reasonable to think that chance alone could create what it later took gifted and highly intelligent men (bio-mimetics) to copy?
It doesn't seem unreasonable at all, generally, the simpler an adaptation is and the more effective it is at aiding in the survival of an organism, the more likely it is that it would evolve more than once. this is called convergent evolution and there are tens of thousands of examples of this, wings and sonar are textbook examples.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  AIR CONDITIONING. Today most of us have air conditioners in our homes. But where did we get the idea from?
A termites 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. Think about this: How do millions of blind workers coordinate their efforts to build such ingeniously designed structures?
i like how you use my example against me. Termites don't know what they are building and yet they make something fully functional, but it isn't that hard for this to happen, Termites probably evolved in a region of the world ware air conditioning wasn't needed, the ones that eventually happened to instinctively build their nests in a fashion that allowed some airflow ware able to migrate to warmer climates, the ones that adapted in a way so that they refined this system ware more successful and could again migrate further.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  Is it by chance they got this wisdom, or were they programmed with it?
they did not get the wisdom, they do not have the wisdom, they have developed an instinct that was beneficial to them and natural selection made that adaptation flourish. after which new beneficial adaptations came which complimented the first one exc.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  We copy from nature, so if the copy requires a designer, what about the original?
we didn't copy an air conditioning system from nature, we eventually realized that some organisms faced similar problems and came with similar solutions, basically the solution that termites had was to increase the surface area of their nests, and building a system which allowed airflow because heat rises. we didn't need termites to realize that hot air rises and that a larger surface gives better results.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  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.
yes it has, we benefited from a refined evolutionary model, Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and in their early years they wouldn't have been a prime example for an airplane wing, they ware probably gliding animals in forests, just as you have countless gliding animals in forests today (flying dragons, gliding frogs, gliding squirrels even flying snakes!). over time, there is natural selection fore more efficient flight (but note that not all birds have flaps at the ends of their wings) just as in the video that I sowed natural selection favored more accurate clocks which led to very accurate, seemingly designed clocks.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  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.
Now Bio-mimetics are looking to the humpback whale, and incorperating the whales flipper design in new airplane construction because of its unique design properties.
sure we copied it, but that tells us nothing about how it came to be in the first place
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?
It requires intelligencs to copy a falling rock, that doesn't mean that gravity requires an intelligence. it just means that it requires intelligence to observe and replicate something.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  DESALINATION. In Australia we are building de-sal plants in many states as we come out of a 10 year drought, and look to sure up our water supply. Mangrove trees have roots that suck up seawater, but filter it through membranes that remove the salt. Sea birds, such as gulls, pelicans, cormorants, albatross and petrels, drink seawater and by means of glands in their heads remove the excess salt that gets into their blood. Also penguins, sea turtles and sea iguanas drink salt water, removing the excess salt.
of course they do, if they couldn't filter the salt than they wouldn't be there in the first place, animals that have a mutation like this suddenly have the opportunity to colonize an entirely new niche which lets them thrive and diversify.
Quote:Once again, we copy from nature, but WHO really deserves the credit?
already addressed this
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  INCUBATORS. Man makes incubators to hatch eggs, but in this he is a latecomer. Sea turtles and some birds lay their eggs in the warm sand for incubation. Other birds will lay their eggs in the warm ashes of volcanoes for hatching. Sometimes alligators will cover their eggs with decaying vegetable matter to produce heat. But in this the male mallee bird is the expert. He digs a big hole, fills it with vegetable matter and covers it with sand. The fermenting vegetation heats the mound, the female mallee bird lays an egg in it weekly for up to six months, and all that time the male checks the temperature by sticking his beak into the mound. By adding or removing sand, even in weather from below freezing to very hot, he keeps his incubator at 92 degrees Fahrenheit.
this is just another case of adaptations, just because we can observe and replicate nature doesn't mean that nature needed a designer.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  SONAR. The sonar of bats and dolphins surpasses man’s copy of it. Even in a darkened room with fine wires strung across it, bats fly about and never touch the wires. Their supersonic sound signals bounce off these objects and return to the bats, who then make use of echolocation to avoid them. Porpoises and whales also do the same thing in water.
sonar is just the development of an acute sense of hearing and a different way to process sound. even humans can draw some conclusions from the room they are in just by the acoustics, and Ray Charles, a blind pianist presumably had hollow shoes so that he could hear when he walked passed a door by the difference in sound. echolocation is simply natural selection in favor of these traits.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  We are always looking to nature to improve or make new things, and more often than not, natures designs are far superior to our crude copies.
So then, if we, intelligent people, copy from nature, indeed use its design features to do make and improve so many things, how is it possible to conclude that nature (the original) what we copy from, has NO intelligent designer, whilst giving full glory and acclaim to the engineer who designs a safer more efficient aircraft wing? or the researchers studying abolone shells for their shock absorbing properties?
just because we can observe and replicate something from nature doesn't mean that nature needed an intelligent designer. It takes intelligence to draw a rock, that doesn't mean that a rock needs an intelligent designer. it takes intelligence to pick up a rock and drop it, that doesn't mean that gravity needs an intelligent designer. and it takes intelligence to understand bio mechanics, but that doesn't mean that bio mechanics needs an intelligent designer.
(05-08-2011 07:47 PM)kaleb Wrote:  If a manufacturer who copies someone else's design but FAILS to acknowledge or credit the designer may be viewed as criminal.
So if the copy ( what we make based on what we take from nature) requires an intelligent designer... What about the original (nature itself)?
[/color]
this is what the video which I posted was about, just because something looks designed doesn't mean that it is designed.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2011, 03:55 AM
Post: #4
RE: who did it first?
Tant I will address this later this evening or tomorrow.

For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you, declares Jehovah, thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.- Jeremiah 29:11
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 05:57 AM
Post: #5
RE: who did it first?
K, how many different threads do you need in which to make this same argument? Do you think it's going to suddenly become more valid because you're saying it in a different thread?

No single step in the search for enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search should.
-Ann Druyan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 06:19 AM
Post: #6
RE: who did it first?
Once again, your argument implies that there can be no first, which is absurd. This means you need to rethink your argument.

Join Atheism Today! Be sure to ask about our sexy parties. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 08:57 AM
Post: #7
RE: who did it first?
(05-11-2011 06:19 AM)jrpurdon Wrote:  Once again, your argument implies that there can be no first, which is absurd. This means you need to rethink your argument.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you here JR, but are you saying that I am saying man can not come up with his own original ideas?

If that is what you think I am saying, then no that is not the case.
Biomimicry or Biomimetics is showing just how much we can learn from nature. If you have the time to watch this video http://www.ted.com/talks/janine_benyus_s...signs.html then you will get an indication of the levels that scientist and researchers, and by extension architects, & designs are embracing the idea that life and nature is a masterful teacher.
As she says, "learning about the natural world is one thing, Learning FROM the natural world, thats the profound switch. 3.8 billion years of R&D, 10-30 million species well adapted solutions" thats the pool of knowledge we are continuingly drawing from.

Can such a masterful teacher owe its existence to purposeless blind chance?

For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you, declares Jehovah, thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.- Jeremiah 29:11
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 09:50 AM
Post: #8
RE: who did it first?
(05-11-2011 08:57 AM)kaleb Wrote:  Can such a masterful teacher owe its existence to purposeless blind chance?

No matter how many times you repost this same argument, and no matter how many threads you post it in, the answer won't change.

1) Evolution is not random. It is nonrandom selection of random traits.

2) The fact that it works doesn't mean it had to be intelligently designed.

From this point forward, I'm going to copypaste this post every time you repeat this tired argument, since it seems to be your one and only argument against evolution which you have repeated about 9387509357890324857 times. It was not any more convincing this time than it was the 9387509357890324856th time you posted it.

No single step in the search for enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search should.
-Ann Druyan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Post: #9
RE: who did it first?
(05-11-2011 09:50 AM)Geoffrey Taucer Wrote:  1) Evolution is not random. It is nonrandom selection of random traits.

2) The fact that it works doesn't mean it had to be intelligently designed.

So .. as kaleb has said before, if you came across a heap of stones that looked as though they'd been carved into the intricate shape of men, you wouldn't instinctively think that they'd been designed/created by somebody/something, you'd assume that they were the "nonrandom selection of random traits".

Is that right?? Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Post: #10
RE: who did it first?
(05-11-2011 12:08 PM)isa_muhammad Wrote:  
(05-11-2011 09:50 AM)Geoffrey Taucer Wrote:  1) Evolution is not random. It is nonrandom selection of random traits.

2) The fact that it works doesn't mean it had to be intelligently designed.

So .. as kaleb has said before, if you came across a heap of stones that looked as though they'd been carved into the intricate shape of men, you wouldn't instinctively think that they'd been designed/created by somebody/something, you'd assume that they were the "nonrandom selection of random traits".

Is that right?? Tongue

My first reaction would be to assume there was indeed a designer, due to the fact that there is no natural process of which I am aware that would lead to such a formation.

If, however, I could find no evidence of a designer, and if I were presented with a viable hypothesis of how such rocks would have formed, and if that hypothesis was consistent with mountains apon mountains of scientific evidence, then I would revise my initial assumption, and conclude that it was indeed the result of natural processes.

I certainly would not at any point in this process jump to the conclusion that it is the work of an invisible man in the sky and that an unrelated book written thousands of years ago by a unverifiable sources must be completely and literally true.

No single step in the search for enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search should.
-Ann Druyan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)