Design inference Engineering Intelligent Design

Why a mechanic infers design. Karsten Pultz explains

Spread the love

Karsten Pultz’s is the author of Exit Evolution.


Some flagellum motors (FM) rotate up to 100.000 RPM (revolutions per minute). For a motor to reach such a speed it needs precision engineered parts like the axle, rotor and bushings. Although being a bio-machine,
the FM has to live up to the same high standards as manmade motors because both operate under the same laws of nature.

To give an example: For a motor to reach 100.000 RPM it must be in perfect balance. Individual parts must be manufactured within precise tolerances keeping dimensional accuracy at its highest. Any imbalance will cause vibrations which will put a limit to the rotation speed, lower efficiency, and potentially be outright destructive. Research has revealed the FM to be an absolute marvel when it comes to energy efficiency.

This confirms a high standard of engineering where tolerances are kept strict.

You know it from when you get new tyres on the car. The tyre guy mounts small pieces of metal on the rim in order to bring balance to a not perfectly manufactured tyre. Unbalanced tyres will cause nauseating vibrations and could in extreme cases even cause danger at high speed. Although being about 45 nanometers the flagellum motor still operates under the same laws of nature as the tyre, and at 100.000 RPM, it would vibrate itself to pieces if it weren’t 100 % balanced.

Comparing the FM to the electric motor:

diagram.png

You would think it reasonable, not the least within science, to expect similar effects to have similar causes. The electric motor and the FM are so similar in construction and function, that it is unreasonable and unscientific to rule out the obvious possibility that they share the same causality.

FM and EM comparison.png

We always try to avoid the occurrence of random changes in machinery because they produce havoc. In the imaginary world of evolution though, this rule is suspended, and not only suspended but reversed as it is claimed that random changes in fact constitutes the innovative force causing evolution to progress.

In the real world causes and effects regarding complex functional systems like for instance electric motors look like this:

CauseEffect

Intelligent design

Complex functional systems

Random changes

Havoc

In the evolutionary narrative cause and effect look like this:

CauseEffect

Randomchanges

Complex functional systems

Empirical evidence (from the world of engineering) supports the assumption that complex functional systems like motors do not arise via random changes to already existing systems. Empirical evidence, even from biology itself, also supports the common knowledge that random changes to functional systems disturb, disrupt, or destroy function.

We find no empirical evidence to support those evolutionary claims that happens to completely contradict these two lines of evidence. We do not even find phenomena that could justify questioning this common sense knowledge.

Insisting on finding an evolutionary explanation for the flagellum motor is the same as trying to find an unnecessary, less probable, and more complicated causality hence violating the principle of Ockham’s razor. If your car keys are gone you don’t start an investigation by first assuming the most unlikely hypothesis like leprechauns or fairies might have taken your keys. No, you start an investigation by assuming the most likely and logical, like maybe your wife took the keys. If this principle were applied to the investigation into the origin of the flagellum motor, you would start with presuming design.

19 Replies to “Why a mechanic infers design. Karsten Pultz explains

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    We always try to avoid the occurrence of random changes in machinery because they produce havoc.

    Yes, we do. So perhaps our resident engineering experts can explain why this Master Designer/Engineer would employ a storage medium that is prone to those random errors for the essential code specifying organisms?

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why position the reproductive organs so close to the waste secretory outlets?

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why position the air and food/drink intakes so close together that they can interfere with each other?

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why adopt a bipedal locomotive system rather than a tetrapodal system that is more stable and capable of greater speeds?

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why place the processor for the central control system at the highest, most exposed and most vulnerable point on the body? Wouldn’t it have been much better protected if it were located somewhere deep in the thoracic cavity with just a retractable sensor array at the top that can be raised just when it’s needed?

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, while there is some built-in redundancy in the form of two lungs and two kidneys, why wasn’t it carried on to other vital organs? Why aren’t there two hearts, two livers, two pancreases, two spleens and so on?

    Oh, and just a minor point, evolution is not just about random changes, it’s about changes that are random only with respect to the organism’s survival prospects occurring within the constraints of an ordered environment arranged according to law-like regularities. Do we have any models or simulations showing how that might work out?

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The key difference is negative feedback, not random vs order. Improvement in real devices or software happens when customers or dealers complain to the maker. The maker, if he wants to keep making and selling, responds to the error signal by finding the problem and fixing it; or by determining what change will produce the new behavior the customers want.

    Natural selection has no aim, no INVERTED ERROR SIGNAL. When changed environment or changed predators require a new feature or fix, the slow process of mutation will ALMOST always fail to produce it. The inadequate organism will just die, because nobody is actively maintaining its hardwired genome.

    Epigenetics DOES resemble customer feedback, because it’s an inherent property of life. Life uses negative feedback to adjust the current behavior or structure of the organism, and creates a backup copy of the system change in the epigenes. When the system is transferred to a new machine (offspring), the change is then written to the new machine.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Polistra –

    Natural selection has … no INVERTED ERROR SIGNAL.

    It does. It’s called death. The size of the signal is basically fitness.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    at 1 Seversky closes out his comment with this,

    Oh, and just a minor point, evolution is not just about random changes, it’s about changes that are random only with respect to the organism’s survival prospects occurring within the constraints of an ordered environment arranged according to law-like regularities. Do we have any models or simulations showing how that might work out?

    Simply unbelievable. Our resident Darwinian expert, who defends Darwinian evolution as if his very life depended on it being true, doesn’t even know if there are “any models or simulations showing how that (his theory) might work out?”

    Well Seversky, let me be the first to inform you, via Robert Marks, that your theory, unlike all other ‘hard’ sciences on the face of planet earth, does NOT have “any models or simulations showing how that (your theory) might work out?”

    Robert Marks: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,,
    We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,,
    There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,
    Models of Darwinian evolution, Avida and EV included, are searches with a fixed goal. For EV, the goal is finding specified nucleotide binding sites. Avida’s goal is to generate an EQU logic function. Other evolution models that we examine in Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics likewise seek a prespecified goal.,,,
    The most celebrated attempt of an evolution model without a goal of which we’re aware is TIERRA. In an attempt to recreate something like the Cambrian explosion on a computer, the programmer created what was thought to be an information-rich environment where digital organisms would flourish and evolve. According to TIERRA’s ingenious creator, Thomas Ray, the project failed and was abandoned. There has to date been no success in open-ended evolution in the field of artificial life.5,,,
    We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,,
    If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,,
    ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,,
    ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure ‘stair step active information’. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,,
    Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,,
    ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- biological fitness is contingent. And it usually involves a loss of function.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    seversky:

    So perhaps our resident engineering experts can explain why this Master Designer/Engineer would employ a storage medium that is prone to those random errors for the essential code specifying organisms?

    There isn’t any code that specifies organisms. And the nature of the physical world is what is the source of the errors. In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any impetus for discovery and learning.

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why position the reproductive organs so close to the waste secretory outlets?

    The options didn’t make any sense.

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why position the air and food/drink intakes so close together that they can interfere with each other?

    The need to talk, duh.

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, why place the processor for the central control system at the highest, most exposed and most vulnerable point on the body? Wouldn’t it have been much better protected if it were located somewhere deep in the thoracic cavity with just a retractable sensor array at the top that can be raised just when it’s needed?

    It doesn’t seem to be a problem. Clearly you aren’t an engineer.

    Also, from an engineering standpoint, while there is some built-in redundancy in the form of two lungs and two kidneys, why wasn’t it carried on to other vital organs? Why aren’t there two hearts, two livers, two pancreases, two spleens and so on?

    Not needed.

    Oh, and just a minor point, evolution is not just about random changes, it’s about changes that are random only with respect to the organism’s survival prospects occurring within the constraints of an ordered environment arranged according to law-like regularities.

    Wrong. According to mainstream evolution all changes are random, as in accidental, chance events.

    seversky is ignorant of engineering and evolution. How quaint.

  7. 7
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Seversky
    Also, from an engineering standpoint, …[insert here any imbecility copied from Neil Degrasse Tyson]

    🙂 Imagine the irony a Jon Doe commenting on internet tell us he is a bad design but his own body(surviving descendant over thousands of generations ) contradict him. What can be more delightful than a living body of an atheist contradicting the ideas that same atheist spew.

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    Who knew? Next time I get sick I’m going to go to Mr. Goodwrench instead of the doctor. I’ll even bet Medicare covers it. Think of all the money I’ll save….

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Well Chuck, doctors do not use blind watchmaker evolution to help them diagnose and treat patients. So why should YOU trust THEM?

  10. 10
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    ET
    Well Chuck, doctors do not use blind watchmaker evolution to help them diagnose and treat patients. So why should YOU trust THEM?

    🙂 Instead they use the magic potion that transform a louse into leopard. 3 sips when is full moon .

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    I love these hilarious arguments from ignorance! “Such and such is a poor design in my opinion.”

    The technology in living things is so advanced, it’s extremely unlikely that your engineering opinion is qualified. First, built a better organism, then criticize. Engineers know that all designs are compromises based on requirements. Any optimizations come at an expense in other areas.

    -Q

  12. 12
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    First, built a better organism, then criticize.

    🙂 He could built a better organism just doesn’t want to… he is doing the hardest job: to speak.

    Engineers know that all designs are compromises based on requirements. Any optimizations come at an expense in other areas.

    Exactly. You want a formula 1 car that reach 372.5km/h speed or a lorry that can carry 44 tonnes? You can talk that each one is bad design if you require from one the qualities of other.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    seversky

    From an engineering standpoint…

    I have asked you like 1000 times… WHat is your education? Because your engineering standpoint questions sound so childish…

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    Querius

    The technology in living things is so advanced, it’s extremely unlikely that your engineering opinion is qualified.

    I, as a mechanical engineer with decent IT skills totally agree with what you said above. Very well said. World’s best engineers are not qualified, let alone some biologist – natural science graduate….the theory of evolution is as absurd as offensive

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    Querius
    First, built a better organism, then criticize.

    It would be enough, if these clowns would create any organism … finally …

  16. 16
    es58 says:

    why this Master Designer/Engineer would employ a storage medium that is prone to those random errors

    Prone?
    It was estimated that both in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, DNA is replicated with the very high fidelity with one wrong nucleotide incorporated once per 10’8–10’10 nucleotides polymerized.

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    When you follow this debate, you see why the theory of evolution is such a success. Basically, you can claim anything – even the most absurd things – important is to use lots of fancy technical terms. To most people these claims sound convincing enough (especially when it is convenient to believe in such things). Most people have no clue how complex things work … actually, most people have no clue how pretty simple things work … i don’t want to offend anybody, BUT THIS IS THE FACT, i see it everyday… You have to be well educated to start understand how average-complex things work.

    So, it is easy for Darwinists to tell these absurd stories every other day, lay public will buy it, anytime … Because at first sight it makes so much sense…

    The problem is, that now we live in 21st century, and we know what it takes to create complex systems… now, in 21st century Darwinian just-so-stories sound as absurd as are offensive to all engineers … (despite there are engineers who buy this Darwinian nonsense because of their Darwinian worldview)

    Let me repeat what Elon Musk (TESLA) admitted a month ago:

    “Tesla boss Elon Musk admits autonomous tech is “a hard problem” and the “difficulty is obvious””

    https://www.caradvice.com.au/965789/tesla-boss-elon-musk-admits-autonomous-tech-is-a-hard-problem-and-the-difficulty-is-obvious/

    Elon Musk employs the best engineers in the world, and these guys are nowhere close to make a reliable autonomous system – a car (and this system is moving on the ground, it does not fly)

    But, Darwinian biologists (natural science graduates) spread their crazy absurd theory, that much more advanced autonomous self-navigating self-replicating flying systems self-designed and then self-assembled at least 4 times independently (insects, birds, dinos, mammals)

    Darwinian biologists – natural science graduates – JUST DONT KNOW WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT.
    They never show you how that may have happened … they just telling stories …

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    to Seversky & Co.

    why this Master Designer/Engineer would employ a storage medium that is prone to those random errors

    Seversky, perhaps you have not noticed, but the oldest known life is now 3.42 billions of years old and it is still around and fully working … WHAT A DESIGN! WHAT A RELIABLE DATA STORAGE MEDIUM !!!

    3.42 billions years!!!

    3.42 billions years!!!

    You can’t even imagine how much time it is …

    3.42 billions years of replication, automatic maintenance, self-repair, during 3.42 billions of years no outside intervention needed to keep these things working, and it is still working …

    So Seversky, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ??????

    This is an engineering SCI-FI !!!!!

    but you will never understand that, because guys like you never made anything

    And finally, after all the years, answer my question:

    WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ?

  19. 19
    martin_r says:

    Seversky

    one more note regarding mutations … from engineering standpoint if you wish….

    You are trying to mislead readers again ….

    by now you should know, that there are tons of proofreading and auto-repair processes to keep the storage media intact. Not one proofreading/repair process, but many … some of it are even backed up, when one repair process fails, the backup repair process will fix it….

    So from engineering standpoint … WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STORAGE MEDIA THAT HAS BEEN WORKING FOR 3.42 BILLIONS OF YEARS ???

    PS: if you don’t like DNA storage medium, what other storage medium would you suggest ? Give us some ideas, can’t wait to hear …

Leave a Reply