Intelligent Design

Why Evolution is Smarter

Spread the love

Here is a gem for you:

 

The idea of nanotechnology is founded in the premise that it will be possible to construct machines with atomic scale precision (Feynman, 1961; Drexler, 1981; Drexler, 1986). Biology provides many examples that this is possible; we “merely” need to learn what has been achieved by evolution and copy it. But eventually we must determine what the engineering limitations of molecular machines are. [emphasis mine]

 

(Thomas D. Schneider. Nanotechnology. )

 

Here are some examples of scientists attempting to emulate the engineering marvels of ID (Oops! I meant EVOLUTION):

 

 

(Small Visions, Grand Designs)

I am wondering why evolution has not already produced a bacterial propeller such as the one engineered by the intelligent folks at Cornell.

 

Anyone?

7 Replies to “Why Evolution is Smarter

  1. 1
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    “I am wondering why evolution has not already produced a bacterial propeller such as the one engineered by the intelligent folks at Cornell.”

    I think some evolutionists would say the bacterial propeller has been produced by evolutionary processes – unfortunately, the prototype is in one of an infinite number of alternate universes that are inaccessible to us.

    Nevertheless, as Willy Wonka says, “You should never doubt what no one is sure about.”

  2. 2
    Unlettered and Ordinary says:

    Greetings!

    Great these guys are so wonderful. They stress over and over, random, random, random, unintelligent forces at work, remember not designed…

    But this stuff is so complicated we have to learn how this technology works by reverse engineering it.

    Darwin says don’t think, just believe, it’s magic. (Darwin was a scientist in his own right, I just mock Darwinists)

    Remember, Dawkins says golden unicorns and flying spagetti monsters. Remember believe atheism and materialism are the only ways to explain things, or else spagetti monsters. (Dawkins believes in flying spagetti monsters, and golden unicorns, he delusional.)

    All fun aside, thanks for the posts.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Lopez: I am wondering why evolution has not already produced a bacterial propeller such as the one engineered by the intelligent folks at Cornell.

    I’ve been studying artificial intelligence and the brain for years and I can tell you that the most important chateristic of intelligence is the ability to anticipate future events. All intelligent animals have this ability. For example, if a dog is chasing a hare and the latter disappears behind a hedge, the dog will instantly anticipate that the hare will reappear on the other side and act accordingly. Anticipation is the sine qua non of intelligence. Without it, there can be no adaptation, no conditioning (classical or operant) and no survival.

    If natural selection is a mechanism of survival, it must of necessity be based on intelligent anticipation. Anticipation is another word for front loading, in my opinion. It’s obvious that nature anticipated future events thousands and even millions of years in advance. But how can a blind system anticipate anything? It cannot. Consequently, someone must have done the anticipation and incorporated the anticipatory knowledge into the system using DNA as a coding vehicle. That someone is an intelligent designer.

    Just thinking out loud. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  4. 4

    “If you want to understand life, don’t think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology.”

    — Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, Norton, p. 112.

  5. 5
    DonaldM says:

    From the opening paragraph of the referenced article:

    CARLO MONTEMAGNO is planning an invasion of your body. “We want to make machines we can insert inside cells,” he says. Once they’re in there, he aims to make them do things that nature simply can’t, such as make drugs or generate electricity.

    I’d be curious to know when and how it has been determined what nature can NOT do? Have we not been told countless times that evolution can produce, well, just about anything, given enough time. If the generation of electricity were necessary for the survival of the cell, wouldn’t evolution have found a way?

    I wonder if there is a list somewhere of all the things that nature can’t do, especially with respect to biological systems.

  6. 6
    Berceuse says:

    Funny, there was in article in New Scientist several months ago about how “evidence proves evolution is blind,” which basically went on to point out all the design flaws in the human body.

  7. 7

    Sure, it is blind. It also damages “good” aboriginal designs. In fact, the negative effects are due to its random and blind nature.

Leave a Reply