Can Evolutionists Steal Biomimetics?

Posted on January 28, 2013 in Biomimetics, Darwin and Evolution, Intelligent Design, Marine Biology, Philosophy of Science, Physics

For a science about designs in nature, some evolutionists seem eager to take credit for biomimetics.

Evolutionary Algorithm

Evolution Inspires More Efficient Solar Cell Design,” blares an oxymoronic headline on Science News – contradictory, because inspiration is a spiritual term, and because efficiency and design are engineering terms not in the Darwin Dictionary.  What could the article possibly mean?

Using a mathematical search algorithm based on natural evolution, the researchers pinpointed a specific geometrical pattern that is optimal for capturing and holding light in thin-cell organic solar cells.…

The researchers employed a genetic algorithm, a search process that mimics the process of natural evolution, explained Wei Chen, Wilson-Cook Professor in Engineering Design and professor of mechanical engineering at McCormick and co-investigator of the research.

Due to the highly nonlinear and irregular behavior of the system, you must use an intelligent approach to find the optimal solution,” Chen said. “Our approach is based on the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.”

Only the most convoluted logic could link an “intelligent approach” of “engineering design” to “survival of the fittest” in the “biologically evolutionary” sense.  Clearly this was an experiment in artificial selection: having a design goal, using an algorithm, and pinpointing a desired result.

Functional Information

In another example, Live Science began a story that could have been founded on intelligent design theory: “Uncovering the Function of Fish Shapes.”  Katherine Gammon’s article states, for instance, that eels are “designed for hiding away and sticking in holes.”  She reported how Kara Feilich of Harvard “decided to investigate the theory that the form of a fish’s body yield [sic] information on its functioning.”  Information – function – those fit well with ID theory.

But then evolutionary theory took over.  Feilich’s mentor Paul Webb described a fish’s shape in terms of “evolutionary strategy” (another oxymoron).  Webb explained that “when it comes to evolution, an animal doesn’t have to be perfect – it just has to do a little better than its competition.”  Next in the article, a museum curator who “studies fish evolution” made a cameo appearance.   Then came a very strange section mixing intelligent design, engineering, biomimetics and evolution:

Feilich said that even though she’s more interested in the evolutionary ecology of fish, uncovering the secrets of fish motion can help engineers build better biomimetic robots underwater– and also in the sky.

What applies to one fluid can apply to another,” Feilich said. “Having different sciences draw from each other to answer evolutionary questions is really important. We couldn’t do this without engineers.

So while Gammon’s article was primarily about biomimetics and engineering design, evolution made a prominent appearance of doubtful substance, leaving those “evolutionary questions” vague and undefined.  Most biomimetics news articles, like this one on spider silk from PhysOrg, don’t even mention evolution.

It is said that a Senator is someone who finds which way the crowd is going, then runs up front and proclaims himself their leader.  That’s what Charlie D. is doing here, except a better label might be Sin-ator in In-Sin-uator.  He’s terrified that biomimetics is leaving his legacy in the trash heap of history, so he is trying to re-invent himself as the head honcho of engineering.  If anyone can figure out what on earth a blind, unguided, purposeless process, whose only outcome is to one-up the competition, has anything to do with designs so efficient our best engineers desire to imitate them, please explain – provided you can list all the chance mutations from sterile laguna to Charlie Tuna.  Otherwise, stop the smokescreen gimmicks like “evolutionary algorithm” and “evolutionary inspiration” that presume Evolution is some kind of intelligent goddess haunting the Engineering department.  Charlie doesn’t believe in spirits, he doesn’t have the tools, and he can’t order free lunches.

 

3 Comments

Donald Holliday January 28, 2013

They have no choice but to steal and hijack biomimetics and intelligent design and spin it as a win for Darwin. They now understand how asinine and ludicrous their mindless purposeless unguided undirected forces dogma is in explaining anything about their worldview. Lying is so ingrained into their psyche, that over many epigenetic generations it is no longer considered wrong. When your worldview says that there are no absolutes and truth is relative, then the sky is the limit when it comes to fabricating stories and manufacturing myths.

Donald Holliday January 28, 2013

I’ve always hated that label attachment invented by NASA — “Evolutionary Algorithm”. Evolution is still supposed to be meaningless and pointless, right ? “Oh no, you are misrepresenting our beliefs”. No I’m not, you still believe in no creator, right ? Yes but evolution is guided.” Such idiocy and lying. Evolution is either blind and undirected or some other god (pagan, aliens, whatever) started the ball rolling with all programming in place to do whatever, because this god was not only amoral, apparently bored and evolution gave an opportunity for entertainment.

As far as I’m familiar, these so-called algorithms in cells have the ability to not repeat constructed patterns and remember ones already created, at least that is how the NASA blind-undirected designers modeled it, didn’t they ? They have no right to directedness. Once they establish the facts of OOL (which encompasses all DNA information systems and construction building nano-machines) , then we can talk directed evolution. Until then they should never be allowed to demand guidance and directedness. There is either no intelligence or there is, you can’t have it both ways. I guess lying is an evolutionary survival strategy. Well, it is at least for the Theory and it’s religious priesthood.

rockyway January 28, 2013

1. “Using a mathematical search algorithm based on natural evolution, the researchers pinpointed a specific geometrical pattern that is optimal for capturing and holding light in thin-cell organic solar cells.…

- This statement is simply false; the algorithm isn’t based on ”evolution” by on e. theory; i.e. it’s not based on something in the real world but on a theory. In other words, the algorithm is an abstraction from a theory.
– natural evolution? what other kind is there? unnatural?
– this ”pattern” has nothing to do with evolution as far as I can see.

2. Katherine Gammon’s article states, for instance, that eels are “designed for hiding away and sticking in holes.”

- An evolutionist has no right to use the term designed. How can people who deny design then use the phrase? Doesn’t their theory bind them to anything? Over and over in reading articles by evolutionists I see no connection between theory and grammar.

3. Webb explained that “when it comes to evolution, an animal doesn’t have to be perfect – it just has to do a little better than its competition.”

- The word perfect has no meaning or place in evolutionary theory; it can only make sense in terms of an intelligent creator, who can judge whether some entity (X) perfectly matches his goal/s for it.

4. “Having different sciences draw from each other to answer evolutionary questions…”

- There’s no such thing as “evolutionary questions” — there can be questions asked by evolutionists, or questions asked about e. theory but there cannot be evolutionary questions. Questions aren’t organisms that can change and adapt.

Leave a Reply