The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
| November 15, 2009 | Posted by niwrad under Biology, Intelligent Design |
Do you remember when I said “when a thing is untrue, if we say it is true we get contradictions” (The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems)? Here I will deal with another contradiction of Darwinism: that we could name its “bionic antinomy”.
According to Wikipedia “Bionics (also known as biomimetics, bio-inspiration, biognosis, biomimicry, or bionical creativity engineering) is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology.” In fact, whether we analyze the history of technology, we find how often technical innovations and systems take inspiration from natural models. For some of the more recent examples of biomimetics see The 15 Coolest Cases of Biomimicry. This article synthetically defines bionics as “biologically inspired engineering”.
Bionics divides in sub-fields. For example, robotics, cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence try even to simulate the human body and mind. By the way these research fields are far from having achieved their long-term goal: to construct an artificial intelligent living being. These sub-fields of bionics, despite they are at the forefront of the technological advance, are those where the qualitative differences between artificial and natural systems are maximum. Matters of principle do exist that scientists never will succeed in such task of artificial creation of a true intelligent living being. Yes they will succeed to construct a robot simulating a human, but this robot will be neither really intelligent nor living. And less than less it will be a real “being” either. But this is another story…
The story herein is the strange phenomenon that happens when bionic and biological systems are put on the same table and compared. When a system “biologically inspired” to a certain biological system is considered in technology the terminology applied to it is engineering jargon (what else). When that biological system itself is considered in biology the terminology applied is purely Darwinian. For example, before the sonar of a submarine they say it is sophisticated engineering; before the sonar of a bat they say it is natural selection. This odd double standard always struck me.
What makes this double standard even more absurd is that, as noted above about robotics, the natural systems usually are more optimized and efficient than the equivalent artificial ones. For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. What … technological jewel! And many other wonderful examples could be considered in nature.
Let’s try to formalize somehow as a very logic antinomy the double standard situation described above.
(1) Intelligence is what creates and optimizes artificial systems by inserting complex specified information into them. Intelligence is the unique source of CSI.
(2) Bionic systems are fully created by intelligence. Say B the CSI of a bionic system, B > 0.
(3) A bionic system is less efficient than the similar natural system (say N its CSI). Then B < N.
(4) Natural systems are not created by intelligence, then N = 0. This is the fundamental axiom of Darwinian evolution: natural systems seem to be designed by intelligence but it is an illusion only.
(5) From #3 (B < N) and #4 (N = 0) we have B < 0.
(6) From #2 and #5 we have in the same time B > 0 and B < 0, i.e. an absurdum.
The above reasoning logically proves that the evolutionist double standard is a very antinomy. In all logic antinomies there is at least a premise that is untrue. I am sure the UD readers will have no difficulty to discover that the false premise is #4, indeed the Darwinian main hypothesis (all species arose by unintelligent natural processes).
There is a teaching for evolutionists here (as in all other contradictions of Darwinism), simply they cannot have it both ways: biological systems undesigned and their artificial clones designed. Since they cannot deny design in artificial clones, they should resign themselves to consider as designed their biological archetypes too.
221 Responses to The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nakashima,
No mind reading required.
Your position doesn’t have any scientific data that supports it.
Neither you, nor anyone else, knows whether or not any amount of genetic modification can account for the diversity of life from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms.
BTW “tin”foil has been replaced by aluminum foil- that was some 60 years ago…
It’s certainly of importance to biology, the understanding of life’s history, and unraveling the complexity of the cell.
I have no idea what that means. It sounds like you’re saying it’s a Gap to hide teleology in.
That only follows if you show that the Gap is filled with your predilection. The available research is indicating natural processes, e.g. horizontal mechanisms.
Fortunately, such a direct demonstration isn’t required. What is required in science is entailed predictions, e.g. showing that small changes to regulatory genes can cause the sorts of changes required, or fossils with primitive traits fitting the nested hierarchy. Of course, this doesn’t “prove” that evolution occured, but the more of these sorts of predictions and observations that are made, the more confident we can be of our theories.
For instance, common descent of bats and other mammals is strongly supported. It doesn’t require a theory of genetics to have a high level of scientific confidence. In addition, we can show that small changes to genes consistent with mutation can bring about many of the required changes. We can show that “‘nocturnal flying insectivore’ was a wide open niche,” meaning the changes were selectable and a rapid radiation is expected.
Then there’s all that other evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. We have good reason to believe that bats evolved, just like everything else.
Zachriel,
You should read Chesterton’s essay Doubts about Darwinism pertaining to bats evolving. His criticism is just as valid today as it was when he wrote it. No, small mutations to the genes cannot bring about novel and beneficial changes of the sort required to bring about a bat from a mouse. And as far as “nocturnal flying insectivore” being a “wide open niche” as “evidence”, is really just “after the fact” speculation, like saying that fruit-bearing trees exist because “upright, wooden, tall, non-sentient, pear-bearing” was a “wide open niche”. Or we can speculate even further, and say that “blue jumping carnivores that eat upside down from pear trees was a wide open niche”. You can always tell a story, whether that story has any actual purchase on reality is questionable, and should be questioned. I’m not interested in story-time retrofit into the gap where there is no actual evidence.
Zachriel:
Design is also a natural process, ie it exists in nature.
The question is are those “horizontal mechanisms” non-telic- meaning undirected and non-targeted?
They wouldn’t fit any nested hierarchy for the many reasons already provided.
Sequences do not make nested hierarchies and transitional forms violate the distinct category requirement.
Also no one has shown that any amount of change in any genome can account for the transformations required.
And blind, undirected processes sure as heck cannot account for regulatory networks.
By bald assertion.
You still don’t have any scientific way to test your claim that tghe transformations required can be obtained by modifying genomes.
You don’t have any clue what genes/ DNA sequences would have to be modified.
And yes bats did evolve- from some original populations of bats.
That is what the science demonstrates.
Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”. In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.
All that is left for Zachriel or any other evolutionist to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice the total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.
The evidence can only be seen in the light of Common Descent, so that has to be established first.
There are known incremental pathways for many transitions in the history of evolution. In bats, the distinguishing structures are modifications of existing structures. Again, we have to start with Common Descent or these statements lack context.
Did you have actual evidence that the niche was already filled? Or are you really saying you don’t consider insectivore a valid and important ecological niche?
Zachriel:
Joseph,
I would enjoy some more discussion about the tree of life, but my posts are now under moderation, which means that I can no longer reply in real time. I suppose the reason is that I got a little personal with bornagain77 the other day, for which I apologize. Should the moderators see fit to revoke this measure, I’ll be happy to discuss once again.
jitsak,
You can still discuss it.
I am still waiting for your explanation as to why descent with modification produces a nested hierarchy.
However you don’t seem to understand nested hierarchies…