First Gear Mechanism Discovered In Nature 136
GameboyRMH writes "A gear mechanism has been discovered [paywalled original paper here, for those with access] for the first time in nature in the nymph of the Issus, a small plant-hopping insect common in Europe. It uses the gears to synchronize the movement and power of its hind legs, forcing the legs to propel it in a straight line when jumping, which would otherwise be impossible for the insect if it had to control the timing and force of its leg muscles independently."
Re:B effing S (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:B effing S (Score:4, Insightful)
Some open minds that folks have here...
Not open enough for our brains to fall out.
Re:B effing S (Score:2, Insightful)
Then take the creature as a whole. Even such a tiny insect is absolutely as complex as a car! For that matter, every *cell* in that insect is as complex as a car - at least the mechanical components (excepting for the point of this discussion the onboard electronics / computer systems).
Oh, and at least I have the decency to avoid name calling and use of expletives... and in fact, to use my real name on comments which may be unpopular. I'm not afraid of what I believe, and I know that it is extremely unpopular on sites like this - but the truth will win out in the end (even if it is long after we are both dead).
Re:B effing S (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.
I suspect that Creationists would say the same thing about any complex biological structure. Interlocking gears are interesting because human beings manufacture similar structures, but there's nothing about them that's more miraculous than, say, a retina.
And if biologists can find fossils with more-primitive gear structures as we go back in time -- fewer teeth, less-effective interlocking, etc. -- that would actually support evolution even more, by demonstrating that it is able to produce interesting machines by gradual (and occasionally stark) mutation.
Of course, I doubt that most Creationists can ever be swayed from their opinions, no matter what scientific evidence is presented, because evidence for evolution in the fossil record is already overwhelming and yet there are still Creationists. That's the power of religion.
Re:B effing S (Score:1, Insightful)
To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.
To me, this level of idiotic thinking is strong evidence of mental incompetence.
Can't explain something in under ten seconds? Well then, God must have done it.
Re:B effing S (Score:2, Insightful)
Then take the creature as a whole. Even such a tiny insect is absolutely as complex as a car! For that matter, every *cell* in that insect is as complex as a car - at least the mechanical components (excepting for the point of this discussion the onboard electronics / computer systems).
Oh, and at least I have the decency to avoid name calling and use of expletives... and in fact, to use my real name on comments which may be unpopular. I'm not afraid of what I believe, and I know that it is extremely unpopular on sites like this - but the truth will win out in the end (even if it is long after we are both dead).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E
If we are of divinely micromanaged origin, the divine is a slacker who takes horrible shortcuts. What are tonsils for? The Appendix? The tail we have in the womb? These are rhetorical questions. Real scientists, who rely on empirical evidence to support theory, vs. theoretical evidence to support faith, understand that following:
1) The world is flat is a false statement.
2) The world is a sphere flat is a false statement.
But the people who don't understand that #2 is LESS wrong than #1 are willful idiots.
If ylur want to believe that there is a god that kicked off the Big Bang and let it go from there, that's fine. But as soon as "He" interferes in the empirically measurable world, there goes free will and self-determination. Anyone who goes to hell is damned by their creator with no hope of redemption, as they wer created wrong. I say F that creator myth.
Re:B effing S (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take your car analogy and run with it. If I found a car on a planet full of self-replicating creatures that shared many features of the car, and even found very simple car components all over the place, as well as a underground record showing many iterations of creatures that eventually led to the car... then yeah, I would assume it evolved there.