RPGWatch Forums

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Gears exist in nature (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21873)

Grangokhan September 15th, 2013 04:18

Gears exist in nature
 
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc…,1476077.story

"Gears may seem like a purely human invention. And yet the basic interlocking mechanism found inside grandfather clocks and car steering systems has now turned up in the remarkably powerful legs of young planthopper insects."



"A magnified photo shows cog wheels connecting the hind legs of a planthopper."



I don't know. I just can't understand people saying "evolution alone caused all current formation of present life and was unguided" when I think discoveries like prove there is a designer of sorts. Even evolution itself, being a system and like a mechanism.

In other news…



But screw all the philosophical, science and logical arguments one might produce for God. For me, the hilarity that is produced unintentionally by the human race proves God exists for me. I know we're created for the sole purpose to amuse and entertainment.

What? You thought those planets were to explore? They're just God's tv channels.

JemyM September 15th, 2013 14:05

The human brain is part of the same universe it perceives, doomed to repeat it's own patterns. When the brain study nature, it studies itself. When it invents, its main inspiration is itself. Despite all advancements, even our most technical inventions end up organic, extensions of the human condition.

Our consciousness is trapped in the human condition but cannot perceive beyond this condition. It can never experience the world as the Hawk, or smell the world like a Dog. We do not only lack the eyes and nose, we lack the brain to comprehend the information. Even among humans we cannot share each-others experience completely. If you are not autistic, colorblind, schizophrenic or synesthetic, that realm of experience is beyond you.

Descriptions of "God" comes from a human perspective. It usually a mirror of human emotions, human feelings or human limitations. At best a mirror of our dreams and hopes, at worst our petty fears and prejudices.

We are limited in power. God is omnipotent.
We are limited in knowledge. God is all knowing.
We are limited in space. God is omnipresent.
We are trapped in a body. God is immaterial.
We are fallible, God is not.

Yet someone else's God is as fallible as themselves. Petty. Unjust.

Some of us wish to escape our human condition. Our wish to be something more than we can be. Our wish to find meaning in empty space. A soul in a soul-less condition. A hero to keep the darkness at bay. A faith and hope that humans are at the center of the universe. The part of it that we can perceive. With our brains.

Gloo September 15th, 2013 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by JemyM (Post 1061218595)
The human brain is part of the same universe it perceives, doomed to repeat it's own patterns.

I generally agree with that ! We, as humans, are unable to imagine things outside and genuinely different from our own worlds of perception. But there are still things that instill the doubt in me. Why some people do not believe in any gods or express visions that seem to be alien to humanity, through arts mostly ?

Alrik Fassbauer September 15th, 2013 14:41

I agree to this as well : We are actually "part of the system", this we are unable to truly view it from the outside.

When of my best experiences of school is that heated Philosophy discussion we had, upon the question whether people are REALLY able to invent something truly "new" - or whether humans are merely able to "invent" something based on something that has always been there before.

In the end, this discussion is uninteresting for me. My interests like elsewhere - plus, they are not helpful when i ask myself : "Why did my cooking go wrong this time ?"

Philosophy is imho great - but there are still more pressing problems to master.

zahratustra September 15th, 2013 16:25

If you don't nitpick on a detail or two but study nature in its variety, you will discover that along with some amazing stuff it also contain a lot of examples of, judging by human standards, shoddiness.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Grangokhan September 15th, 2013 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061218617)
If you don't nitpick on a detail or two but study nature in its variety, you will discover that along with some amazing stuff it also contain a lot of examples of, judging by human standards, shoddiness.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Wouldn't that really be evolution's mistake unless you don't believe in it?

Besides I don't really think a few genetic mistakes disprove a designer.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17…ligent-design/

And no one said evolution and ID cannot go hand in hand.

zahratustra September 15th, 2013 21:20

To make a mistake you have to understand what "mistake" means. Evolution isn't something that think or plan. It mutates. Some of those mutations are beneficial for an organism, same are neutral and some are positively lethal.

hishadow September 15th, 2013 22:47

I bet its already patented by now.

Grangokhan September 16th, 2013 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061218633)
To make a mistake you have to understand what "mistake" means. Evolution isn't something that think or plan. It mutates. Some of those mutations are beneficial for an organism, same are neutral and some are positively lethal.

Accident then or anomaly. Since it's set to what a creature should be like in every individual species thanks to DNA and genetic coding, a creature suffering from extra limbs (Polymelia) would be experiencing an error as the other creatures of its kind (the majority) do not suffer that condition.

pibbur who September 16th, 2013 12:09

But that creature won't survive, and it's genes won't pass on to the next generations. There is a difference between features of the species and individual creatures. The list is about features of the species.

Actually, that list is what one would expect from evolution. A feature will survive if it provides better chance of survival than the competition. It's not about achieving perfection. For a land animal going back to sea, descendants who can stay underwater longer before surfacing than their "siblings" have an advantage and will more likely spread their genes. Being able to "breathe" underwater would probably be even better, but there's no guarantee that such a creature would ever evolve. It's all about survival relative to others, and for that a suboptimal adaptation will be sufficient as long as it's better than the competition.

OTOH, if a species was designed from the ground up, choosing suboptimal features doesn't make much sense.

Whether there's a creator behind it all or not - I tend to believe there is, but if so, the mechanism chosen is evolution. IMO.

pibbur who is a bit scared because he posted on the P&R forum. And who will now probably go back into hiding.

Gloo September 16th, 2013 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by pibbur who (Post 1061218674)
A feature will survive if it provides better chance of survival than the competition.

Is this an established rule or just the pious wish of claimed scholars ? If so, then what about these many genetic anomalies being passed on through generations ?

DArtagnan September 16th, 2013 13:50

Evolution is just the best theory we can come up with that seems to fit the facts to a reasonable extent.

I don't think talking from that position with "objective authority" is a good way to find the truth - assuming such a thing exists.

Alrik Fassbauer September 16th, 2013 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by hishadow (Post 1061218641)
I bet its already patented by now.

I'd guess that, too.

I once heard that some companies train their fresh employees by giving in nonsense patents to the patent registrators - just to train them how to make patents at all.

Damian September 16th, 2013 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061218617)
If you don't nitpick on a detail or two but study nature in its variety, you will discover that along with some amazing stuff it also contain a lot of examples of, judging by human standards, shoddiness.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm


I think the thought of shoddiness comes from a lack of understanding. Like for example the human eye is really something else and isnt really that shoddy:
Quote:

Although biological cells are mostly transparent, they are phase objects that differ in shape and refractive index. Any image that is projected through layers of randomly oriented cells will normally be distorted by refraction, reflection, and scattering. Counterintuitively, the retina of the vertebrate eye is inverted with respect to its optical function and light must pass through several tissue layers before reaching the light-detecting photoreceptor cells. Here we report on the specific optical properties of glial cells present in the retina, which might contribute to optimize this apparently unfavorable situation. We investigated intact retinal tissue and individual Müller cells, which are radial glial cells spanning the entire retinal thickness. Müller cells have an extended funnel shape, a higher refractive index than their surrounding tissue, and are oriented along the direction of light propagation. Transmission and reflection confocal microscopy of retinal tissue in vitro and in vivo showed that these cells provide a low-scattering passage for light from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells. Using a modified dual-beam laser trap we could also demonstrate that individual Müller cells act as optical fibers. Furthermore, their parallel array in the retina is reminiscent of fiberoptic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. Thus, Müller cells seem to mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss. This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system and ascribes a new function to glial cells.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8287.short

Damian September 16th, 2013 15:40

The human appendix is another example of this case:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…-function-of-t

Quote:

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

"In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix—like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract—takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.

"In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.

Damian September 16th, 2013 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061218617)
If you don't nitpick on a detail or two but study nature in its variety, you will discover that along with some amazing stuff it also contain a lot of examples of, judging by human standards, shoddiness.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Actually reading some of this guy's comments, i think he has no clue whatsoever on the subject. Like:

Quote:

Bipedal vertebrates usually carry much of the spine roughly horizontally, and balance it with a tail. Equally, a string of cotton reels with spongy cushions between is a good cantilever bridge type design for flexible quadrupedal running. But it's a lousy thing to stand on its end and withstand the compression strains of vertical bipedalism. Compression strains are best absorbed by pillars. If you want the pillars to be flexible, you put joints in them. In biology, we have examples called 'legs'.
I am not going ot say anything here just- :rolleyes:


Quote:

The urethra — the tube via which urine exits the body — is a soft tube. And it runs through the prostate, an organ prone to infection and subsequent swelling.
Does he not know that urine is sterile?

EDIT apparently there is new research(last year) that indicates that bladders have bacteria in them, they do not know if they are beneficial or not.

EDIT 2: Not sure now. He study in question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases…0409164156.htm

Also apparently you can have bladder infections through the urethra. So ok, leave that as a question mark.

pibbur who September 16th, 2013 19:37

Some of the examples in the list doesn't make much sense IMO, the piece about the urethra is one of them. In fact, the male urethra, due to its length, protects against bladder infection. In most cases infections of the bladder are ascending infections, germs reaching the bladder through the urethra. Females have significantly shorter urethrae than males and are much more susceptible to bladder infections.

The prostatic gland may play a role, but mostly due to enlargement of the gland which can compress the tube, preventing complete emptying of the bladder. Urine remaining in the bladder between peeing is a significant contributor to infection.

pibbur

MonsterMMORPG November 7th, 2013 01:53

everything is perfect creation of Allah
including the science

if you look carefully a lot of inventions are directly copied cloned or inspired from animals


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:29.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch