Biomimetics Shows Quite A Bit Of Promise

Scientists are in a biomimicry frenzy, not that it is a bad thing, although credit is given to evolution.  Aromatic compounds comes from plants, which does the signaling, defense and symbiosis. A research named, “Scripps” is trying to figure out why the terpenes are so hard to produce in a lab but yet routine for plants.

Using new chemistry, science daily reports…

“The new technique, described in an advance online edition of the journal Nature Chemistry on Sept. 23, 2012, mimics a crucial but obscure biochemical phenomenon that allows cells to make terpenes. The discovery may one day result in cheaper, fully synthetic versions of the cancer drug Taxol, the antimalarial compound artemisinin and hundreds of other useful terpene products.

“It’s exciting for us because we’re now making molecules that have never been made in the laboratory before, and we’ve done this by first observing what nature does,” said the senior investigator for the study Ryan A. Shenvi, a chemist at Scripps Research.”

In another article which is very excited about biomimetics being able to help improve human lives in the future!

Phyorg.com

“Biomimicry looks for how nature performs a function,” Marie Zanowick, a certified biomimicry professional for the Environmental Protection Agency, told Boulder Weekly. “It mimics natural strategy and the best design principles on this planet.” Biomimicry has been around for decades, but modern scientists are increasingly embracing the concept.

Velcro, for example, was inspired by the way burrs grab on to fur. By looking at systems that exist in nature, scientists hope to solve world hunger, create better technologies, and produce more sustainable devices that will improve people’s lives. Take Russell Rodriguez, for example. A researcher at the University of Washington, Rodriguez has developed a way to grow rice to five times its normal size while using half the amount of water. Meanwhile, the plants are more resistant to cold and salt. If it is commercialized, this rice could be a way to help solve world hunger.”

This is quite amazing, if it does go commercial and is able to benefit mankind, it will be interesting to see how well this is perceived by the “organic” or “natural” community. More than likely they would see this as a threat to their products. The article then gives credit to evolution…

“Much of this research is expected to result in eco-friendly discoveries. Zanowick says biomimicry is a great way to create more sustainable technology because it mimics things that already work efficiently in nature. “It’s based on 3.8 billion years of research and development, and the only organisms that survive are the ones that follow life’s principles.”

The description resembles an intelligent scientist rather than evolution. Since when does evolution (a mindless process) conduct a research and development program using design principles? Evolution is blind, it has no goals to accomplish, no foresight, therefore it cannot come up with design principles to conduct its research and development. Giving it billions of years is circular reasoning.  Nature is a product of intelligence which is why the credit for evolution sounds like a scientist rather than a mindless natural process!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Biomimetics Shows Quite A Bit Of Promise

  1. Evolution is blind, it has no goals to accomplish, no foresight, therefore it cannot come up with design principles to conduct its research and development.

    Michael is concerned about evolution’s research and development only because he believes that evolution is somehow siphoning off his hard-earned tax dollars.

    Since evolution is going on all around us, then evolution must not require design principles. Which is what we have been saying all along.

    But we can ask Michael what are these precious design principles.
    Michael please list the design principles that God employed in special creation:
    1. ______________________
    2. ______________________
    3. ______________________
    4. ______________________

  2. I think that line above was poorly phrased. However, the process God used are in the realm of the divine and cannot be known to finite humans.

  3. [T]he process God used are in the realm of the divine and cannot be known to finite humans.

    ERGO, creationism is not science.

    Which is what we have been saying all along.

  4. Creationism isn’t only about the initial creation, the methods of which are unknowable because special creation is by divine fiat. The laws built into creation however, can be known hence creationism is ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’ and doing so through scientific investigation which the originators of Western science did. Did you not read this when you were devouring Ronald Numbers? Evolution cannot produce an experimentally testable big bang which is not an extraordinary extrapolation. Nor can it tell us how abiogenesis occurred. Thus it is not science, right?

  5. The laws built into creation however, can be known hence creationism is ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’ and doing so through scientific investigation which the originators of Western science did.

    So we have two aspects of creationism:
    (a) when studying creation itself, creationism denies the applicability of scientific inquiry;
    (b) when studying other matters, creationism is indistinguishable from science.

    In the first case, creationism limits science; in the second case, it adds nothing.

    Sounds like a net loss to me.

  6. when studying creation itself, creationism denies the applicability of scientific inquiry;

    When studying the initial creation event, creationism denies the application of human reason to the methodology of the divine event but not to the actual creation.

    when studying other matters, creationism is indistinguishable from science

    Why use the word ‘indistinguishable’? Poisoning the well #1.
    Anyway, when studying ‘other matters’, creationism is the only scientific framework which may produce correct information depending on the investigator’s axioms. This is a result of immutable natural laws that stem from the nature of the creator. This is in contrast to evolution which assumes purposelessness to everything naturalistic thus science has no purpose in an evolutionary framework and is thus self-defeating.

    In the first case, creationism limits science; in the second case, it adds nothing.

    Poisoning the well #2

    Sounds like a net loss to me.

    As would be expected of an evolutionist.

  7. When studying the initial creation event, creationism denies the application of human reason to the methodology of the divine event but not to the actual creation.

    The methodology is the only aspect of creation that would be of any value to science, since that is what would allow us to understand it, and thereby to control its processes for human benefit. Creationism forecloses this, area, and thus limits science.

    The laws built into creation however, can be known hence creationism is ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’ and doing so through scientific investigation which the originators of Western science did.

    The “scientific investigation” part is indistinguishable from science–by definition.

    “Thinking God’s thoughts” adds nothing, so it is still indistinguishable. If it did add something,then scientists of different religions would come up with more or different results and theories. Yet Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, Buddhist scientists, Shinto scientists, and Bokonist scientists all calculate the same parameters fro gravitational lenses, all come up with the same atomic decay rates, all find the same binding energies for amino acids.

    In fact, Western science was originally conceived by Thales in the 5th century BCE specifically as a means of understanding the physical world independently of the actions of gods. Speaking of the rise of Greek philosophy, McRae[1] remarks—

    These social changes made it possible to not only contemplate an impersonal universe, but to form an academic culture where one could argue about it without fear of repercussion. Gods and goddesses weren’t completely done away with, but their role in explaining natural phenomena was diminished. Alliances with supernatural entities weren’t as necessary, making impersonal laws more practical in describing events.

    This notion was refined in the 12th century by Abelad of Bath, in the principle of explanatory closure, which fully ejected supernatural causation from the domain of science.

    Anyway, when studying ‘other matters’, creationism is the only scientific framework which may produce correct information depending on the investigator’s axioms. This is a result of immutable natural laws that stem from the nature of the creator. .

    Explanatory closure is the closest thing science has to an “axiom.”[2] Creationism therefore is not only not “a scientific framework,” it is not science at all.

    Natural laws do not “come from” the mind of a creator. If they did, was God wrong when Einsteinian relativity replaced Newtonian gravitation? Was God mistaken when quantum theory replaced classical mechanics? We know that relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible; is God confused, or is he toying with us?

    We humans attempt to discover laws of nature. You say that these spring from the nature of the creator. Yet you have claimed several times that prying into the nature of the creator with human knowledge is arrogant, even blasphemous. Is this why creationists don’t formulate testable theories? Or is it merely because they might be proven wrong?

    This is in contrast to evolution which assumes purposelessness to everything naturalistic thus science has no purpose in an evolutionary framework and is thus self-defeating

    Really? One would think that at least some of the world’s millions of scientists would have twigged to this and given up science for something more purposeful, such as underwater basket weaving But, so far …..

    In summary,creationism has never added anything of value to science, and limits it in several ways which impede human progress. The world’s scientists agree. The philosophers of science agree. Entire Christian denominations agree, and many individual clergy have signed up as well..

    ==============

    [1] McRae, Tribal Science (Prometheus 2012), p.54. This engaging new book describes science as a social and anthropological phenomenon, including how we form beliefs, and why we hang on to failed hypotheses.

    [2] Remember that the purpose of an axiom is to define boundaries. Euclid’s 5 axioms are not true or false per se—rather they define the boundaries of Euclidean geometry. We know there are geometries in which, say, the parallel axiom does not hold. These geometeries are not “true” or “false.” But they are not Euclidean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s