Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The Woodpecker Inspires High-G Engineering Designs

Recently research has shown the risk of concussion to football players. Even at the high school level helmet-to-helmet collisions can produce acceleration levels approaching 100 g's. Amazingly, woodpeckers can experience head collisions of 1200 g's, and at more than 20 times per second, as they peck at trees. New research is uncovering how the woodpecker manages to sustain such shocks and nature's design is inspiring a range of improvements to engineered systems.

The new research has found that woodpeckers have a shock absorber system that consists of four components.The woodpecker has an elastic beak that helps reduce the shock, a soft structure underlying the tongue, spongy bone in its skull, and a vibration-suppressing interaction between the skull and spinal fluid.

Discovering this system is only the first step. Researchers are now investigating how to take advantage of this design. In one experiment the woodpecker-inspired design was used to protect microelectronic circuitry. The entire system was fitted inside a bullet and the microelectronic were protected in impacts of up to an amazing 60,000 g's.

This technology has potential applications in airborne flight data recorders (which can withstand shocks of 1000 g's), automobiles and spacecraft. As one engineer observed:

This study is a fascinating example of how nature develops highly advanced structures in combination to solve what at first seems to be an impossible challenge. It may inform our thinking on regenerative dampers for vehicles, redirecting the energy into a form more easily recoverable than dumping it to heat. Ultimately, we need to learn from the woodpecker to recover energy and not give the driver a headache.

And how do evolutionists explain the development of such "highly advanced structures in combination"? They say that random biological variation, such as mutations, just happened to produce this system. They say that fortunately, there just happened to be a long series of gradual improvements leading to the final design. They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist. Somehow, amazing designs over and over just happen to be in a long series of useful, though unknown, intermediates.

55 comments:

  1. So, human design is inspired by nature, and then we infer design in nature by comparing natural systems with human design.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter: They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist.

    The structures in woodpeckers seem to have antecedents in other birds. Is there something in particular that stands out as a problem?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zachriel:
    Is there something in particular that stands out as a problem?

    For me the something in particular is the lack of any explanatory detail in any of the stories created to describe an evolutionary transition.

    Body plans need to be altered, assembly instructions need to be created, and parts need to be supplied in the right place at the right time. How and where does all this take place during the variation part of random variation and natural selection?

    Stating that the structures have antecedents in other birds only pushes the problem back a level.

    If a genetic mutation does not alter the body plan as some have stated, then is Darwin's theory falsified?

    In other words, do evolutionists really know how evolution works beyond the simplistic statement of random variation filtered by natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doublee:
    If a genetic mutation does not alter the body plan as some have stated, then is Darwin's theory falsified?

    What does that mean? Who are those "some"?

    Darwin's theory is falsified, but not for that. For one thing, it got heredity wrong. It said nothing about genes. Modern evolutionary theory owes much to Darwin's theory, but it's not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doublee:
    Body plans need to be altered, assembly instructions need to be created, and parts need to be supplied in the right place at the right time.

    You forgot the capital, the Project Manager, the retailers, the PR guy...

    In other words, do evolutionists really know how evolution works beyond the simplistic statement of random variation filtered by natural selection?

    Don't project your own ignorance. Textbooks are out there, try reading one.

    Stating that the structures have antecedents in other birds only pushes the problem back a level.

    It pushes nothing. It sets a base-ground to work upon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This article outlines a complex biological system and then argues from incredulity against evolution.

    CH:
    "They say that random biological variation, such as mutations, just happened to produce this system."

    Ok, more or less that is the theory.

    CH:
    "They say that fortunately, there just happened to be a long series of gradual improvements leading to the final design."

    Not quite. Whether or not any design is fortuitous is subjective, and designs are final only in terms of an individual organism--"intermediate" or otherwise--but not in terms of species. So this sentence is a mischaracterization of evolution.

    CH:
    "They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist."

    No, we don't know all intermediary organisms from current species to origins. We know a few and that gives us a picture of common descent for some organisms and we extrapolate that to all life.

    CH:
    Somehow, amazing designs over and over just happen to be in a long series of useful, though unknown, intermediates.

    Again, more or less the theory. The contentious point being "just happen to be." This is where some evidence for directed evolution or design would help your argument. Why can this not be random? Why is the seemingly connected tree of life seen through geologic time and cooborated by genetics instead just a random collection of organisms?

    ReplyDelete
  7. My last paragraph might be confusing. I mean to ask why common descent can not be random and if not common descent then why is it instead a collection of similar but unrelated organisms seen through time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For me the something in particular is the lack of any explanatory detail in any of the stories created to describe an evolutionary transition.

    You are immediately demanding a model for the evolution of a complex, newly discovered feature. How reasonable is that?

    Evolutionary theory provides a theoretical framework and methods to study the evolutionary development of features (look up phylogenetic comparative methods). Given the data available, we can get a good, well-supported model, or we can fail. But we certainly have something to work with.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. T. Cook:
    This article outlines a complex biological system and then argues from incredulity against evolution.

    Actually, posts of this kind are the best by Cornelius. They usually highlight some actually interesting biological feature, and the vacuous incredulity arguments of the final paragraphs can be spotted from miles away.

    (Reposted for correction)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Biomimicry offers awesome improvements in many human designs to make them more efficient and even more environmentally safe.

    Information technology can also benefit greatly by better understanding the multiple complex layers of living cell systems. What we are doing with computer processing, networking and programming now is stone age compared to what we can learn from these living systems. It will enable us to build more efficient, flexible and powerful storage and processing systems.

    There is a lot to appreciate and learn from the world God created, the evolutionists naysayers not withstanding. The dollars and efficiencies will rule over any archaic philosophy like evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tedford the idiot said...

    Biomimicry offers awesome improvements in many human designs to make them more efficient and even more environmentally safe.

    Information technology can also benefit greatly by better understanding the multiple complex layers of living cell systems. What we are doing with computer processing, networking and programming now is stone age compared to what we can learn from these living systems. It will enable us to build more efficient, flexible and powerful storage and processing systems.

    There is a lot to appreciate and learn from the world God created, the evolutionists naysayers not withstanding. The dollars and efficiencies will rule over any archaic philosophy like evolution.


    What we can learn from creatures in nature and how the creatures got there are two completely different things.

    Evolution has a mechanism and 150+ years of positive empirical evidence to support it. What do you have besides your personal interpretation of a holy book and lots of empty bluster?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thorton:

    Evolution has a mechanism and 150+ years of positive empirical evidence to support it. What do you have besides your personal interpretation of a holy book and lots of empty bluster?

    Hey, meathead. Why is it that every time you open your mouth, a dead vermin falls out of it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Doublee:

    Body plans need to be altered, assembly instructions need to be created, and parts need to be supplied in the right place at the right time. How and where does all this take place during the variation part of random variation and natural selection?

    That's the most amazing thing about evolution. It is, by far, the most stupid and the most brain dead idea in the history of humanity, even worse than the flat earth hypothesis. Yet, we see bozos like PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and other grey matter deprived Darwinists (like the ones who post here) parading around like dumb peacocks, proclaiming to anybody who's willing to listen that evolution is a complex and awesome theory that only they (and rocket scientists, apparently) can understand.

    Paul Feyerabend, the great philosopher of science of the last century, wrote in Against Method:

    "... the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."

    He might as well have been talking about Darwinists. I would go even further than Feyerabend and say that Darwinists should be given no position in society higher than that of the animals they tell us we evolved from via random mutations. 'Bozos' does not do it justice.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Geoxus:
    What does that mean? Who are those "some"?

    What it means is that I am trying to get independent verification of the claim that a genetic mutation may not alter the body plan.

    It also means that if current theory relies strictly on genetic mutations, then it would seem that such a fact would be contrary to the theory.

    There are three possible answers to my question.
    It is true. It is false. Science doesn't know yet. And if science doesn't know yet, then I would submit that the theory is not fully explicated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Doublee:

    What it means is that I am trying to get independent verification of the claim that a genetic mutation may not alter the body plan.

    Good luck with that. Whence did you get it in the first place?

    It also means that if current theory relies strictly on genetic mutations, then it would seem that such a fact would be contrary to the theory.

    Indeed. If some alternative form of change and transmission that completely excludes genetics were found, a new evolutionary theory should emerge. If it is proven that change and transmission of any kind are impossible, you'd have effectively killed evolution. Not only that, biology should be re-founded. Either you're going for the former or the latter, you have grand plans. Let us know when you start your revolution of biology.

    There are three possible answers to my question.
    It is true. It is false. Science doesn't know yet.


    The only question you asked is:

    If a genetic mutation does not alter the body plan as some have stated, then is Darwin's [corrected: current evolutionary] theory falsified?

    "Science doesn't know yet" is not applicable, unless you're implying that someone secretly demonstrated you bizarre idea.

    And if science doesn't know yet, then I would submit that the theory is not fully explicated.

    That's pretty non-sequitur, whatever it means for a theory to be "fully explicated". If you mean "the theory is incomplete", let me save your time telling you: yes, it is incomplete. We can't explain every evolutionary phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Doublee said...

    Geoxus:
    What does that mean? Who are those "some"?

    What it means is that I am trying to get independent verification of the claim that a genetic mutation may not alter the body plan.


    Most mutations (by which I mean all genetic variation) don't affect the animal's morphology - the large majority are neutral with respect to the animal's survival potential - but some of them do. Some mutations make the animal less likely to reproduce - those are deleterious mutations - and since the animals have a statistically lower chance to breed those mutations tend to get weeded out. Some mutations however increase the animal's chances of living long enough to having offspring. Those are beneficial mutations. And while they are rare, because they provide a statistical advantage they tend to accumulate.

    Doublee, you have got to lose your mental model of life being like a factory production line if you ever want to understand this science.

    If you absolutely must have an analogy, think of DNA as a recipe, say your Grandma's favorite for layer cake. Besides the materials and amounts, there are also instructions for how long to bake, when to add what, etc.

    Now think of making 10 copies of that recipe but you have a flaky copier. Every time you make a copy the duplicate gets a slight random change from the original. You give the 10 recipe copies to 10 friend and they each bake the cake. One recipe had an error and switched sugar for salt. UGH! That cake got 'selected out'. Eight are the same as Grandma's but one has extra chocolate. YUM! That cake is the most popular - it is selected for - and everyone wants it. So you make 10 copies of the 'extra chocolate' recipe but those copies have errors too. The next batch of cakes get baked. Most of the cakes are the same, one is icky (it had a bake time of 4 minutes instead of 40 minutes), but one has an extra layer. DOUBLE YUM! Now that is the one that gets selected for.

    Keep this going for hundreds or thousands of iterations and you're going to get something that is far removed from Grandma's original recipe. The recipe has evolved through no conscious effort on anyone's part.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Throton:

    If you absolutely must have an analogy, think of DNA as a recipe, say your Grandma's favorite for layer cake. Besides the materials and amounts, there are also instructions for how long to bake, when to add what, etc.

    LOL. Thorton opened his/her mouth and spewed out another dead vermin.

    In the case of evolution, grandma (the designer) is not in the picture. The recipe not only created itself, if created the utensils and the stove before properly cooking the meal that grandma will never get to eat. Who needs grandma anyway? Darwin killed grandma before she was even born.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius Hunter said...

    And how do evolutionists explain the development of such "highly advanced structures in combination"? They say that random biological variation, such as mutations, just happened to produce this system.


    Mutations filtered by selection, and fed back into each subsequent generation. As always you butcher the actual science.

    They say that fortunately, there just happened to be a long series of gradual improvements leading to the final design.

    "Fortunately" in the same way falling rocks "fortunately" end up at the bottom of the hill. Another hatchet job by CH

    They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist. Somehow, amazing designs over and over just happen to be in a long series of useful, though unknown, intermediates.

    Cornelius, can you name your relatives for every generation going back the last 2000 years? If not, can we assume you weren't born but were hatched out of a test tube marked "Failure"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Throton labored mightily and spewed out another dead vermin:

    Mutations filtered by selection, and fed back into each subsequent generation. As always you butcher the actual science.

    Which is not such a bad idea since there is no science to speak of. The idea behind this deceptive generation-feedback filtration non-explanation is that you and I are supposed to believe the lie that the search space is constrained or reduced by the feedback mechanism of natural selection. In reality, the search space does not diminish at all with each generation as lying fraudsters like Thorton would want us mere mortals to believe. The real truth is that the search space grows exponentially as the complexity (number of base pairs) of the genome increases.

    Exponential growth kills Darwinian evolution before it even gets off the ground. As anybody who is familiar with genetic algorithms (GAs) can tell you, unless the solution space is severely restricted, the problem becomes intractable and you might as well be waiting for chickens to grow teeth. The hard and painful truth is that GAs are just little toys that computer nerds love to play with when their bosses are not looking.

    Worst, the population size does not increase exponentially to make up for the growth in complexity but, in fact, decreases. There are a lot more microbes and fungi in the world than birds or dogs, for examples.

    Darwinism = religion of cretins, liars and imbeciles.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    The idea behind this deceptive generation-feedback filtration non-explanation is that you and I are supposed to believe the lie that the search space is constrained or reduced by the feedback mechanism of natural selection. In reality, the search space does not diminish at all with each generation as lying fraudsters like Thorton would want us mere mortals to believe. The real truth is that the search space grows exponentially as the complexity (number of base pairs) of the genome increases


    That is only true if you require the process to come up with the entire genome from scratch in one single step. That's the same stupid mistake Dembski made and got rightly skewered for, so you're in good company there Fruit Loop. In actuality the process happens in millions of discrete steps, with each step being a single generation. All each generation has to search is the area immediately next to it.

    You're claiming I can never get from the bottom to the top of a 1000' skyscraper because 1000' is too big a distance to jump all at once. But I can make it easily by climbing one stair at a time.

    The hard and painful truth is that GAs are just little toys that computer nerds love to play with when their bosses are not looking.

    Yeah, just look at those computer nerds at the NASA Evolvable Systems Group playing with their little GA toys, then flying the results on hundred million dollar spacecraft which rely on the GA designs working properly.

    Worst, the population size does not increase exponentially to make up for the growth in complexity but, in fact, decreases. There are a lot more microbes and fungi in the world than birds or dogs, for examples.

    What orifice did you pull that non-sequitur from?

    Looie, are you still obsessed with touching guy's testicles? Or was that just a phase?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thorton:

    Savain: In reality, the search space does not diminish at all with each generation as lying fraudsters like Thorton would want us mere mortals to believe. The real truth is that the search space grows exponentially as the complexity (number of base pairs) of the genome increases

    Thorton: That is only true if you require the process to come up with the entire genome from scratch in one single step.


    This makes no sense, of course, but leave it to Darwinists to rub their own excrement all over their bodies and assume that they've somehow been purified and have reached nirvana. The truth is that mutations are applied on the entire genome of each generation, regardless of the number of generations that preceded it. Mutations do not care that the current generation is slightly better than the previous ones. They may even erase whatever advantage was gained by previous mutations without a care in the world. That's the meaning of the random part in random mutations, remember, meathead?

    Thorton: In actuality the process happens in millions of discrete steps, with each step being a single generation. All each generation has to search is the area immediately next to it.

    Bull pucky. As a software engineer who knows something about GA, I can assure you that each generation must search the entire available genome because mutations are blind. It makes no difference that the current genome is better than the previous one. This is not what determines the size of the search space.

    Thorton: You're claiming I can never get from the bottom to the top of a 1000' skyscraper because 1000' is too big a distance to jump all at once. But I can make it easily by climbing one stair at a time.

    Not at all, meathead. This is what YOU are claiming. Not me. The real truth is that every time you go up one step, the evolutionary skyscraper grows by another 1000 steps. And I am not even close to exaggerating with this metaphor.

    Savain: The hard and painful truth is that GAs are just little toys that computer nerds love to play with when their bosses are not looking.

    Thorton: Yeah, just look at those computer nerds at the NASA Evolvable Systems Group playing with their little GA toys, then flying the results on hundred million dollar spacecraft which rely on the GA designs working properly.


    Yeah, sure. First off, they have only been able to evolve ridiculously trivial designs compared to living systems. Second, they use critics that are designed to severely restrict the search space. In a way, this may not be unlike the way finches grow longer beaks in response to the environment. But then again, finches may do it using a completely different mechanism such as a Lamarckian adaptive system that works in a single generation. After all is said and done, an antenna optimizing GA is not going to evolve a microphone for the same reason that chickens are not going to grow gills and start swimming under the sea. All a GA does is optimize an existing design.

    Savain: Worst, the population size does not increase exponentially to make up for the growth in complexity but, in fact, decreases. There are a lot more microbes and fungi in the world than birds or dogs, for examples.

    Thorton: What orifice did you pull that non-sequitur from?


    LOL. Well, it sure did not come out your mouth since only dead vermin comes out of your mouth. ahahaha... The point I was making obviously flew over your 2-neuron brain. The point is that, if the sample size (population) could grow with each more complex generation, the mutation rate would be greater and would compensate for the growth in complexity. Problem is, we observe the exact opposite in nature. What a bummer.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thorton:

    "What orifice did you pull that non-sequitur from?

    Looie, are you still obsessed with touching guy's testicles? Or was that just a phase?"
    ===

    Since you both appear to have found each other's perfect match, perhaps you can two can both leave here and go rent a room somewhere. The rest of us will wish you both the best.

    *cough - cough - spit*

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cornelius Hunter quoting Kim Blackburn:

    "Ultimately, we need to learn from the woodpecker to recover energy and not give the driver a headache."
    ===

    I noticed you highlighted this portion of Kim Blackburn's seeming revelation. Interestingly, just such advice was given over 2000+ years ago by King Solomon.

    Proverbs 6:6-8 (New Living Translation)

    6 "Take a lesson from the ants, you lazybones.
    Learn from their ways and become wise!
    7 Though they have no prince
    or governor or ruler to make them work,
    8 they labor hard all summer,
    gathering food for the winter."

    Then there is the advice mentioned centuries earlier in the book of Job that was trashed earlier in the other comments thread.

    Job 12:7-8 (New International Version, ©2011)

    7 "But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
    or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
    8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
    or let the fish in the sea inform you."

    Obviously in recent years scientists and engineers have, in a very literal way, allowed plants and animals to instruct them. They are studying and mimicking the design features of various creatures in that same field Neal Tedford referenced as biomimetics, in an effort to create new products and improve the performance of existing machines. However what scientists and engineers have been mimicking and replicating are not lucky mistakes and copying errors, but rather sophisticated designs.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    The truth is that mutations are applied on the entire genome of each generation, regardless of the number of generations that preceded it.


    What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Can appear anywhere on the genome you moron, not does appear on every possible location. Every base pair in the genome doesn't mutate every generation. In humans every individual gets about 150 mutations per generation.

    Bull pucky. As a software engineer who knows something about GA, I can assure you that each generation must search the entire available genome because mutations are blind. It makes no difference that the current genome is better than the previous one. This is not what determines the size of the search space.

    As a software engineer who knows absolutely nothing about biology or genetics you are completely clueless. In real life populations don't search every possible genetic change on every possible base pair in each generation The 'space' that gets searched and kept in every generation depends on the phenotype, not the genotype - a little bigger, a slightly different color, a little better eyesight, etc. Individual that get selected for don't have to be perfect, they only have to be slightly better than their neighbors. That's the differential reproductive success you don't understand. Slow incremental changes that accumulate, step by step, not a giant leap to perfection. Exactly as I explained.

    You also seem to have the common Creationist misconception that 1 gene = 1 phenotypic trait. In reality there are many different ways to make the same protein, and different combinations will produce the same net phenotypic change.

    All a GA does is optimize an existing design.

    And all evolution does is try to optimize the population's existing 'design' for its current environment by making small incremental changes every generation. It doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be good enough. Another point you can't seem to grasp.

    The point is that, if the sample size (population) could grow with each more complex generation, the mutation rate would be greater and would compensate for the growth in complexity.

    I see you're as ignorant on sampling theory as you are on evolutionary biology. You don't have to have a huge population and sample every last possibility to improve. You can sample a much smaller subset of possibilities then select/keep the best out of that lot, which is what nature does.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Louis Said:
    each generation must search the entire available genome because mutations are blind. It makes no difference that the current genome is better than the previous one. This is not what determines the size of the search space.

    That's not how GA works. The length of the gene determines the size of the search space and the running of the algorithm constitutes the search. The amount of space searched in each generation is determined by a population size parameter. The range of values for the next generation is determined by mutation and exchange parameters. Infinite search spaces can be considered by allowing genetic sequence strings to grow unbounded. This doesn't usually apply to most engineering problems, since the GA is used to find optimal parameters for fixed functions, but the approach is the same. Finally, the GA doesn't need to search the entire space. That is just a brute force approach and can be done by trying every combination of every parameter input. This is untennable for any slightly hard non-convex problem; which is why we employ GA, simulated annealing, and other heuristic methods.

    ReplyDelete
  28. According to Louis Savain's blog he's not a degreed Software Engineer either. In his own words

    "I am a self-taught computer programmer. Ok, I did take a C++ class at UCLA a long time ago, just for grins and giggles."

    He's 99th percentile Dunning-Kruger.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thorton:
    Doublee, you have got to lose your mental model of life being like a factory production line if you ever want to understand this science.

    As I like to tell people, I am condemned to walk the earth as an engineer. In other words, I will not be able to lose my mental model of life having to solve the same kinds of problems an engineer has to solve when changing the design of something. Parts have to be rearranged in both space and time in order to effect a change. Now evolution may solve these problems with completely unexpected mechanisms, but evolution must solve them, nevertheless.

    I will rephrase my question this way. Embryogenesis for two morphologically different organisms, one descended from the other, has to have been changed. What must each random event modify in order to reconfigure the program that controls embryogenesis?

    According to Dr. Hunter’s post these questions have not been answered yet:

    They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist.

    Without knowing how evolution works, scientists are sure that it does. Most likely you will answer that science does not have to know how evolution really works. All the other evidence overwhelmingly convinces us that evolution is true. (I have gotten answers like this before.) I do not share your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton labored mightily and spewed forth another dead vermin:

    According to Louis Savain's blog he's not a degreed Software Engineer either.

    Which one of the reasons that you should be even more ashamed of yourself. You have a degree and yet you're so dumb. Why is that?

    ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Doublee said...

    Thorton: Doublee, you have got to lose your mental model of life being like a factory production line if you ever want to understand this science.

    As I like to tell people, I am condemned to walk the earth as an engineer. In other words, I will not be able to lose my mental model of life having to solve the same kinds of problems an engineer has to solve when changing the design of something.


    Pity, because it means you're choosing a path of willful ignorance.

    According to Dr. Hunter’s post these questions have not been answered yet:

    As far as the evolutionary science here goes, Dr. Hunter is so full of it his eyes are brown. This is a political blog, not a science one, and the good Dr. only runs it to preach his religious / political views.

    Without knowing how evolution works, scientists are sure that it does.

    Science knows an amazing amount about how evolution works. You can take undergrad and graduate level courses in it at most top colleges and universities in the country. As someone already pointed out to you, don't project your own ignorance. Textbooks are out there, try reading one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Embryogenesis for two morphologically different organisms, one descended from the other, has to have been changed.

    Morphological differences can appear after embryogenesis. Simple example: Abystoma tigrinum-Ambystoma mexicanum. Both descend from a common ancestor which underwent complete metamorphosis.

    What must each random event modify in order to reconfigure the program that controls embryogenesis?

    Depends in the specific case we have at hand. I'm not sure you're very clear about what kind of answer you'd expect.

    According to Dr. Hunter’s post these questions have not been answered yet [...] Without knowing how evolution works, scientists are sure that it does.

    There are about 9800 living species of birds only. You want a molecular-level detail model for the evolution of every organism? You can help, write to your Congress representative. Tell him or her to support science funding.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    (snip inane blithering by the ignoramus)


    Since all you're doing is repeating your already discredited stupidity I won't bother with it, but I couldn't let this steaming pile slide:

    If reproductive success were the only criterion needed for the survival of the species, then the more complex lifeforms would have been selected for their ability to have huge numbers of offsprings. This is not observed in the more complex species.

    More incredible stupidity. There are any number of variables that shape the reproductive strategy of a species - energy cost of producing each offspring, size of each offspring, number of offspring, gestation time, ability of the mother to function while pregnant, amount of postnatal care each offspring needs before it can live on its own, size and amount of predators, etc. That's why we see so many different strategies in the natural world, because one size doesn't fit all. Making the naive claim that large animals would automatically do better if they had more offspring shows just how totally clueless on biology you really are.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Louis Said:
    each generation must search the entire available genome because mutations are blind.

    and

    the entire search space is considered at every generation

    Depending on how you treat the word "considered" these are two different statements. A search is a sequential evaluation of points, which makes the first statement wrong. If by considered you mean that every point is a candidate for evaluation (but that only the points/genes in the next generation are actually evaluated) then you have an accurate description of GA.

    Louis said:
    Cook: The amount of space searched in each generation is determined by a population size parameter.

    Not true. This is both a misconception ...


    You are confusing space searched with search space. The latter, we agree, is determined by the gene. The former is a subset of the search space determined by the current generation.

    Louis said...
    The search space of a GA is severely restricted.

    Would you consider the set of real numbers restricted? They're uncountably infinite and representable by to the set of all infinite quaternary strings. In other words, for every genetic code there corresponds a real number. We can approximate the irrational number pi--or any other irrational number--with a GA to any accuracy you may require. So GA isn't restricted in the sense you are talking about.

    http://pyevolve.sourceforge.net/wordpress/?p=618

    Louis Said:
    Cook:but the approach is the same.

    Same as what? Same as evolution? That's a laugh.

    The approach for infinite and finite search spaces, that is clear from the context.

    Louis Said:
    It follows that the size of the population does not affect the size of the search space. It only affects the effectiveness of the search mechanism. The smaller the population, the less effective the mechanism.

    You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a global optimum to the search space in question, with effectiveness being the difference between the fitness of the result of the search and the global optimum. That's the wrong argument; it doesn't matter that there is the possibility of a supreme being that evolution is unlikely to produce. It only matters that evlolution tends to produce better and better beings. You are arguing against the effectiveness of GA to reach an optimal solution but that doesn't negate evolution.

    For evolution to work, we need to start with points with a minimum fitness level (abiogenesis) and gain complexity and fitness with subsequent generations. If you are going to take issue with GA and evolution, at least criticize the approprate aspects.

    Your other points seem to be based on this assumption, so I'm not responding to them here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Louis Savain: The size of the search space does not depend on generation feedback.

    The space searched by an evolutionary algorithm depends on the fitness landscape.

    Louis Savain: The painful truth is that the entire search space is considered at every generation.

    At each generation, only nearby points in the fitness landscape are considered (nearby defined as including recombination of various sorts, as well as mutation).

    Louis Savain: Any advantage is likely to be erased by subsequent mutations.

    That is not the case when under selection. Some mutation are much more likely to be fixed or go extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Geoxus:
    You want a molecular-level detail model for the evolution of every organism?

    No. What I would like to see is some kind of conceptual description or overall summary of how evolution goes about creating a morphologically different organism. Surely more than the creation of a new protein is involved.

    As a reader of the popular literature and a frequenter of many blogs, I have seen virtually nothing beyond randon variation filtered by natural selection.

    I will admit that I am not knowledegable on this subject. Some call this projecting my ignorance. I call it asking a question to help me learn more about how evolution works at a more detailed level.

    If an answer to my question exists, a link to an article or even a search phrase would do.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Doublee: What I would like to see is some kind of conceptual description or overall summary of how evolution goes about creating a morphologically different organism.

    Natural variation. This description is a bit oversimplified, but it gives you some idea of the process.

    Your height, the shape of your individual bones, the chemistry of your liver, all vary from those of other people. Each person is a unique combination of traits.

    Take a single trait, such as height. The variation normally follows a bell curve about the mean average. If we select for height, then the curve moves toward the higher values and narrows. Sometimes, over generations, we find that individuals show up that are taller than any previous individual. Selection will continue to move the bell curve towards the higher values. Eventually, the mean average will be higher than any individual in the original population.

    If we look at a more complex structure, such as the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, we can show how these sorts of small changes could occur within the norms of natural variation and incremental selection. They "morph" into their new configurations.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Doublee said...

    I will admit that I am not knowledegable on this subject. Some call this projecting my ignorance. I call it asking a question to help me learn more about how evolution works at a more detailed level.

    If an answer to my question exists, a link to an article or even a search phrase would do.


    Here is an excellent site for a beginning layman.

    U.C. Berkeley Understanding Evolution

    Start with the Evolution 101 section. Read the pages in order, ALL of them. Then explore some of the more detailed sections on evidence, etc.

    Feel free to ask questions any time. I think you'll find those of us who have studied and understand evolutionary biology will bend over backwards to help someone who is honestly interested in learning.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thorton:

    I have visited the U.C. Berkeley site before, and I just did a quick scan of the topics and my initial impression is that I will not find the answer I am looking for. This article is written for the beginning student and covers all the standard arguments. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.

    My interest is in the mechanism of evolution, and not in all the artifactual evidence that purports to confirm the mechanism.

    Then I recalled Dr. Richard Sternmberg's research.

    It seems that he is pursuing research that will answer my questions.

    http://www.richardsternberg.org/research.php

    I am trying to identify formal rules that underpin morphological states, meaning generative functions that entrain DNA specifications. The second part of my research is the identification of ontogenetic events where “informational buffering” may occur — where outputs at one level are “read” by higher developmental processes as “data.” And third, as a corollary of these two endeavors, I am testing various self-organizational models to see if these can account for the origination of novel organ complexes.

    And the most interesting quote of all:

    One interpretation of this observed drifting of the phenotype independently of the genotype is that DNA sequences only specify the building materials of bodyplans, not the groundpattern. My emphasis.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doublee said...

    I have visited the U.C. Berkeley site before, and I just did a quick scan of the topics and my initial impression is that I will not find the answer I am looking for. This article is written for the beginning student and covers all the standard arguments. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.


    Since you are a beginning student who doesn't understand the basics, you need to read and understand it, not skim it. All of it. Don't mean to be harsh but from what you've shown here you don't know enough to ask intelligent questions.

    A good semi-technical book on the physical logistics of how body plans evolve is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by geneticist Sean B.Carroll. But unless you have some background understanding of evolutionary processes it's going to go right over your head too.

    FYI Sternberg is the dishonest Creationist who snuck a pro-creation paper into the journal Biological Society of Washington just before he retired. The journal's editors retracted the paper when they learned of the shenanigans amd Sternberg's end-run around proper peer review process. Sternberg's credibility is zero in the professional scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Doublee, you should read up on evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo for short

    Evolutionary developmental biology

    The UC Berkeley Evolution site has an intro on it too. If you must ignore the rest of the site, at least read that part.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thorton:
    In my March 29, 3:26 P.M. post I said there were three possible answers to my question of whether a genetic mutation can alter the body plan of an organism. True; false; don't know.

    I have read the Wikipedia link on evo-devo. It seems that the answer could have readily been given at that time rather than going through the subsequent exchanges.

    The answer should have been something like this:

    Science doesn't have a complete answer yet but scientists are working on it. You can find a description of the kind of work they are doing in this link to evolutionary develpomental biology. It is interesting to note that one of the questions being asked is the one you are asking.

    A major question then, for evo-devo studies, is: If the morphological novelty we observe at the level of different clades is not always reflected in the genome, where does it come from?

    Dr. Sternberg, who labels himself as a structuralist, is asking the same question and pursuing reseach to find the answer. Rather than acknowledge that, you choose to go on an irrelevant rant about his being a creationist.

    If you respond to this post, I have a prediction on how you will answer. Surpise me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Doublee said...

    Dr. Sternberg, who labels himself as a structuralist, is asking the same question and pursuing reseach to find the answer. Rather than acknowledge that, you choose to go on an irrelevant rant about his being a creationist.

    If you respond to this post, I have a prediction on how you will answer. Surpise me.


    So you didn't bother to read the evo-devo information at the Understanding Evolution site. You didn't bother to watch any of the excellent video lectures provided there either. You didn't bother to get a copy of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. But you'll knee-jerk defend a Creationist proven liar and fraud because he's telling you what you want to hear. Got it.

    You want all the answers handed to you but you're not willing to do one bit of work to understand the topic. Remember when I said this?

    T:"you'll find those of us who have studied and understand evolutionary biology will bend over backwards to help someone who is honestly interested in learning."

    So far that's not you. But maybe you'll change and surprise me. Let me know when you're read the information and watched the science lectures.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Doublee said...

    Science doesn't have a complete answer yet but scientists are working on it. You can find a description of the kind of work they are doing in this link to evolutionary develpomental biology. It is interesting to note that one of the questions being asked is the one you are asking.

    A major question then, for evo-devo studies, is: If the morphological novelty we observe at the level of different clades is not always reflected in the genome, where does it come from?


    Pity you stopped reading the Wiki article right there, because the question is answered in the very next sentences

    "A major question then, for evo-devo studies, is: If the morphological novelty we observe at the level of different clades is not always reflected in the genome, where does it come from? Apart from neo-Darwinian mechanisms such as mutation, translocation and duplication of genes, novelty may also arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation. The finding that much biodiversity is not due to differences in genes, but rather to alterations in gene regulation, has introduced an important new element into evolutionary theory. Diverse organisms may have highly conserved developmental genes, but highly divergent regulatory mechanisms for these genes. Changes in gene regulation are "second-order" effects of genes, resulting from the interaction and timing of activity of gene networks, as distinct from the functioning of the individual genes in the network."

    Just how lazy and unwilling to read are you?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton:

    I did read the part that you have highlighted. I paid particular attention to the word may.

    My interpretation was based on that word, and that's why I said that science doesn't have a complete answer yet. The words may and must have are common in many of the the descriptions I have read. I guess that when a Darwinist uses those words, he means he has come to a firm conclusion.

    The bottom line for me is that how the body plan of an organism is changed is still an open question and that is where I will focus my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Doublee said...

    Thorton:

    I did read the part that you have highlighted. I paid particular attention to the word may.

    My interpretation was based on that word, and that's why I said that science doesn't have a complete answer yet. The words may and must have are common in many of the the descriptions I have read. I guess that when a Darwinist uses


    Oh fer chrizzake, please tell me you're not that dense. The word may in those sentences is not expressing "we don't know". It's describing two different empirically observed processes. Like if your travel agent told you "You can get to Hawaii by plane, or you may take a cruise ship. Would you start screaming "AHA! You don't know how to get to Hawaii!!"

    Of course science doesn't have a complete answer yet. But that doesn't mean science is totally in the dark and knows nothing about the subject as you like to kid yourself.

    The bottom line for me is that how the body plan of an organism is changed is still an open question and that is where I will focus my attention.

    I have no reason to believe you. All you've shown to date is a desire to cherry pick the odd quote here and there to support your ignorance based pre-formed ideas. That's why you won't read the info on evo-devo at the Berkeley site, or watch the excellent video lectures on the topic.

    Why don't you tell me what homeobox genes are, and how they affect body development? I bet you won't do it because it would involve reading and research on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Doublee: The bottom line for me is that how the body plan of an organism is changed is still an open question and that is where I will focus my attention.

    What we do know is that organisms have a natural range of variation, and that novel variations arise in populations.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton:
    If the word "may" is used to describe an empirically observed process then I submit that "may" is a very poor choice of words.

    I can only respond to the following dictionary definition of the word from dictionary.com

    1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
    2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
    3. (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.


    I was using definition #1. Yes, there is a possibility that I could take a cruise ship to Hawaii and there is a possibility that I could fly to Hawaii. However, the choice I actually made is not empirically detectable until I end up in Hawaii.

    To paraphrase a line from the Wiki article: There is a possibility that novelty also arises by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation.

    If there is a possibility of something occurring then that is in effect saying that there is a hypothesis that can be tested. Performing the test will then empirically confirm (or disconfirm) the hypothesis.

    Until the test is performed then they only thing you can say is [o]f course science doesn't have a complete answer yet.

    If there was an observable result the article should have said something like: Tests have shown that novelty does arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Doublee said...

    Thorton:
    If the word "may" is used to describe an empirically observed process then I submit that "may" is a very poor choice of words.

    I was using definition #1.

    To paraphrase a line from the Wiki article:


    Sorry Doublee, but you don't get to pick which definition you want. The author of the article does. And you don't get to paraphrase and twist the meaning either. Those are the actions of someone only interested in cheap rhetorical games, which I'm sad to say describes you in spades.

    You're still too lazy to read the Berkeley intro to evo-devo. You're still too lazy to watch the video lectures on the subject. You're still to lazy to research the most basic parts of the scientific findings, like homeobox genes and how they function in body plan development.

    If there is a possibility of something occurring then that is in effect saying that there is a hypothesis that can be tested. Performing the test will then empirically confirm (or disconfirm) the hypothesis.

    Tests have been performed, many of them. The hypothesis has been verified. You'd know that if you weren't so lazy and didn't ignore the many references provided.

    You don't want to learn. You only want to stay wrapped in your warm safe cocoon of ignorance. So be it. I think we're through here.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Doublee: To paraphrase a line from the Wiki article: There is a possibility that novelty also arises by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation.

    What we do know is that small novelties occur in populations, and that many can be traced to specific mutations. These novelties are uncorrelated with fitness, but appear stochastically. We also can determine that many profound evolutionary adaptations occurred in selectable increments.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thornton:
    Sorry Doublee, but you don't get to pick which definition you want.

    If I read an article based on a common understanding of definitions and word usage, and the author of that article uses entirely different definitions then communicatation becomes hopeless and confusing as witnessed by this exchange. End of discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Doublee said...

    Thornton: Sorry Doublee, but you don't get to pick which definition you want.

    If I read an article based on a common understanding of definitions and word usage, and the author of that article uses entirely different definitions then communicatation becomes hopeless and confusing as witnessed by this exchange. End of discussion.


    Translation: "I don't want to learn, so I'll use a cheap semantic trick as an excuse and declare myself right instead of trying to understand".

    Enjoy your blissful willful ignorance.

    ReplyDelete