Design principles in spider silk
| March 12, 2010 | Posted by David Tyler under Intelligent Design |
Spider silk has been an active area for biomimetics research for several years. Spinoff companies have been launched in anticipation of commercial gains. However, despite the enthusiasm and commitment of research staff, the prizes are still elusive. Whilst the main goal is to produce fibres that are as strong and as flexible as spider silk, there are other aspects of the natural material that have attracted the interest of researchers. One of these concerns the ability of webs to be a site for dew collection.
“When Lei Jiang first observed the phenomenon, he was intrigued. “How does that happen?” he wondered. After all, he says, “if you took a human hair, water would not stick to it like that”. His initial curiosity led to an almost five-year-long study. The findings could have implications for the design of materials for water collection and for the efficiency of chemical reactions.”
Not only do webs attract dew, the droplets are able to hang stably on the silk fibres. This suggests the presence of a microstructural mechanism. All polymeric fibres have a microstructure and spider silk is no exception. SEM images reveal a series of amorphous regions (called puffs) and crystalline regions (called joints). The nanofibrils are highly hydrophilic: enhancing wettability and favourable for condensing dew. The puffs have a very open structure and are semi-transparent in images. However, when water starts to condense, the puffs shrink – first to “opaque bumps” and then to “spindle-knots”. As they shrink, tiny water droplets coalesce to form larger drops with movement from joints to spindle-knots.
“Further work revealed that movement of the droplets towards the knots is directed by two forces acting together: the force generated by a gradient of surface energy on the fibrils and the one produced by the spindle shape of the knots. “This is quite different from other reported surfaces, on which drops are driven just by individual forces,” says Jiang.”
[. . .]
Is there an ID perspective on this? Wherever researchers recognise “design principles” in the natural world, the answer is, of course, ‘yes’. The presumption with ID is that design features imply functionality, whether or not we know the details. Dew gathering is a unique and remarkable feature of spider silk simply because other fibres do not display such behaviour. The authors comment:
“We observed such directional water collection behaviour only with wetted silk fibres (that is, wet-rebuilt silk) from the cribellate spider Uloborus walckenaerius; in contrast, silkworm silk and nylon fibres with a uniform structure did not exhibit the directional water collection phenomenon.”
Whether evolutionists can explain ‘how the spider came to gather dew’ is more uncertain. Even with functionality identified, perfecting this highly engineered system makes it most reasonable to infer intelligent, rather than natural, causation.
For more, go here.
38 Responses to Design principles in spider silk
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hrun, Do you presuppose it is not possible to know these things? Have you even looked at the evidence I presented to back my assertion?
you say you want to discuss these things, but How is it possible for me to discuss something with someone who has decided what the answer is beforehand, as you have obviously done without reviewing the evidence I presented to defend my case. From such close mindedness, in this as well as other threads I’ve seen you in, I’m sorry for even giving you the benefit of a doubt of being sincere in your request!
Yes. I indeed presuppose that it is not possible to know those things. And I am in great company here on this blog.
You have not shown much of evidence. You have quoted many biblical quotes and you have quoted stuff about the fine-tuning of the universe.
And I did not say that I do want to discuss these things. Where have I done so?
But thank you for labeling me close-minded.
bornagain77 @30,
Scientific discussions, just like software, are layered.
If a specific point is being discussed, you have to deal with it in context.
I get the sense, that no matter what detail is being debated, the evidence for the ID side becomes all-encompassing and global at some point in the debate, just as in this one.
The ID side will have to stay focused and in context if we’re going to get this debate into a public forum and resolved, so that students in the future don’t have to suffer through a debate they clearly don’t yet have the information to decide themselves.
hrun:
“But thank you for labeling me close-minded.”
“Yes. I indeed presuppose that it is not possible to know those things.”
but is it a “label” when you admit it?
bornagain77, how can you tell from my statement that I am closemided. You asked me an opinion and I gave it to you. Nothing in that statement says that I am unable or unwilling to change my made when presented with evidence. You are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted from the statement.
InVivoVeritas @ 15
We can see what a marvelous designer He is. There’s the cancers caused by irreparable damage to our fragile genes, there’s the diseases caused when our marvelous immune system turns against the body it’s supposed to be defending, there’s a spontaneous abortion rate that could be as much as 50% of all conceptions, there’s brain dementias, developmental disorders, flesh-eating bugs. I could go on but you get the idea. Maybe He exists. Maybe, in His own mind, He’s “good” and “excellent” and a “marvelous designer” but, seriously, this is past a joke.
Oh, we get the message alright but it’s not the message a lot of people would like it to be.
I’m sure you don’t care what I think. It will probably not make the slightest difference. You will go on believing what gives you comfort and hope and that is your right.
But if you want to infer anything about your God or the designer you need to look at His creation as a whole, not just the good bits.
Seversky:
Have you ever heard of “the fall of man?”,,, Christians always claimed that we were in a fallen world and never claimed that we were already in heaven! As well, if it is possible to get past, what I perceive to be, your deep seeded anger towards God, may I ask you; How does the presence of natural evil in the world negate a inference to design in the first place? It just does not follow logically.
Refuting The “Bad Design” Vs. Intelligent Design Argument – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....ane_craig/
off topic:
I just remembered that it is Pi day:
3:14
which is Albert Einstein’s birthday;
This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi, e in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages:
http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/
Eulers Number – God Created Mathematics – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....thematics/
hrun0815 @ 9
[Regarding] Design Principles. So there are two options:
a) the authors meant something specific with the words ‘design principles’ and you know about it (otherwise you would not have quoted the words)
b) you meant something specific by the words ‘design principles’
What do the words mean in this context? What are those design principles? Do they relate to an actual physical designer? Are they actually not related to a designer at all?
The phrase, as used by the authors and by myself, mean that the information as to how moisture-acquiring silk is constructed has been identified by a process of reverse engineering, and that this information can now be used (and has been used) to engineer something similar (but not yet as good as the natural product). So, the principles relate to the work of an actual designer.
I’ll post another blog on design principles in the natural world and you can have another look at the concept there.
Seversky @ 12
But there are examples of natural selection acting on mutations and filtering out the beneficial from the detrimental in given environments.
We all know this. If you want a useful exchange, you must realise that it is possible to analyse the significance of the empirical findings. It is not only ID scientists who think that natural selection has been hyped up as a mechanism. There are many others who are convinced that there must be some other processes that can take evolution a lot further than Darwinian mechanisms. Furthermore, they can see that the building of complexity takes more than incremental selection of mutations – and this is why complex specified information is a key to making progress in understanding what the issues really are.