evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-05--Doctor’s Diary: Evolution’s Countless Chicken-and-Egg Conundrums

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Simmons is a physician and the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .
It turned out last week that scientists had been wrong for 350 years about how sperm swim .
From Science Magazine : Watch a human sperm under a microscope , and it will appear to swim like an eel wiggling its tail through the water .
But a new study reveals that sperm actually swim in a much more chaotic manner — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harness for maximal speed .
Researchers scanned human sperm samples with a 3D microscope and a high-speed camera — one that could keep up with the speedy swimmers , which can manage 20 to 30 swimming strokes per second .
Though in two dimensions sperm appear to lash their tail from side-to-side in symmetric strokes , the reproductive cells actually move in a lop-sided manner , beating their tails to one side only ( as seen in the video above ) , the team reports today in Science Advances .
That is fascinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Everyone is familiar with the riddle : Which came first , the chicken or the egg ?
This circular causality dilemma has been discussed by philosophers for ages , without resolution .
When applied to the theory of human evolution , as one case , it brings out several interesting and damaging challenges .
Just substitute the human female and her fertilized ovum ( egg ) into the riddle or the human male and his “ speedy , ” “ lop-sided ” sperm .
Or , you could ask whether a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texts say man preceded woman , by a very short period of time .
Proponents of evolution , however , don ’ t clearly address the timing .
To say humans evolved from apes , one must explain an uncountable number of viable , parallel , genetic steps ( changes ) in both sexes , at every twig and branch on the Tree of Life .
There must have been pre-human males and females .
And , before them , pre-pre matched pairs .
And before them , pre-pre-pre matched pairs .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primordial seas .
Evolutionists seem to assume that at least a pair of new , genetically matched animals of the opposite sex accidentally arrived at the same time ( s ) .
It ’ s the rabbit out of the hat trick , albeit two rabbits .
After a few ( not so ) simple genetic tweaks , the Earth had air-breathing fish walking out of the sea , who knew what to eat on land and where to find it .
Soon thereafter , in geological time , Orville and Wilbur Wright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and eventually primates , who could dig insects out of logs , walk erect , and be trained to ride bicycles , appeared .
Darwinian drawings make all this seem simple , like changing clothes , but scientists know that it isn ’ t .
Virtually all intermediate , male-female pairs , possibly millions of them , are inconveniently missing from the fossil record .
This is not a discussion of natural selection or isolated mutations .
Neither process can create a new species of our caliber .
It is not about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horse and getting a new version of a horse .
Changing an ape ’ s zygote ( first cells ) into a human zygote would require many more steps than found in the One World Trade Center tower .
Yet the Center serves as a good analogy .
Note that virtually all stairs at the construction site had to be placed in order , at the right time , and in the right way .
Step # 1,011 could not be added until there were 1,010 stairs already in place .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in evolution .
Keep in mind , a biological skyscraper , such as a human being , might have billions of staircases .
Sexual partners had to come about in close proximity with the correct macro- and micro-apparatuses .
Also , the two must have found each other irresistible .
But there are a few genetic stumbling blocks here .
Inbreeding dilutes the changes .
Within a few generations , descendants from such a match return to their usual genotype and phenotype .
Breeding with one ’ s own siblings and parents also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to genetic crises .
The conundrum , asking which came first , can be applied to all human body parts , all cell parts , all chemistries , all electrical sources , and all genetic instructions .
This includes every aspect of the female genitals ( macroscopic and microscopic ) , different female hormones with reciprocal hormone receptor sites , and two ovaries , strategically placed within the pelvis .
Although each ovary has 250,000 eggs , only one egg typically matures at a time .
How is this determined ?
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and female parts must arrive at the same time , in the right place , and be compatible with the counterpart .
The male ’ s includes external genitals , male hormones , the correct hormone with the correct receptor sites , and an ability to quickly make , and remake , sperm .
In actuality , there are millions , possibly billions , of genetic and chemical changes needed to convert an ape zygote into a human zygote .
And multiply that by two ( sexes ) .
Not only must the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be stimulating pheromones , visual cues , and foreplay to start everything off .
There has to be something that gives the partners pleasure .
Mandatory procreation probably failed the first time it was tried .
Which came first , the sperms ’ navigation systems or the egg ’ s GPS system ?
Both have a long , potentially dangerous journey before the rendezvous and another after fertilization .
Did the two Fallopian tubes ( narrow channels between the ovary and the uterus ) precede the “ sticky fingers ” that catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drops ?
Did the egg ’ s ability to open its door to only one specific sperm come before the sperm ’ s ability to figuratively knock on the door ?
Did the mechanism to connect the male chromosomes to the female chromosomes arrive before chromosomes were made ?
The chicken and egg conundrum seems to apply in virtually every system inside the human body .
Look at growth hormone and the millions of contractor bone cells with unique receptors .
They build and shape bones ; they repair fractures .
The hormones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all needed at the same time and in the right places .
Muscles could not have come about without tendons for anchoring them and nerves to stimulate them .
Joints are useless without the presence of lubricating joint fluid , cartilage covering bone tips to dampen the banging traumas and ligaments for stability .
Having only one hip socket doesn ’ t lend itself to a healthy existence .
Fingers without joints would be of limited benefit .
Joints without fluid would be hard to use .
Joints without compartments to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without opposing muscles to flex and extend would be floppy appendages .
And , a standout question is which came first , flexors or extensors for every moving part ?
Which came first , two eyeballs or two eye sockets in the skull ?
Did eyelids come before eyelashes ?
Tear ducts before tear glands ?
Were the eyes properly spaced from the beginning or first found in unrelated locations ?
Which came first , the optic nerve in the back of the eye or the occipital lobes of the brain to interpret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A traditional Darwinist might argue that none of this matters .
All congruent parts of chickens and eggs evolved together , from one size to another , from one color to another , from pre-pre chicken and pre-pre egg to pre-chicken and pre-egg to the chicken and the egg , and from one species to the next like an army marching forward , adding and subtracting troops as it goes .
There are several problems with this kind of thinking , however .
First , there is no proof that any new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can actually be added accidentally , by natural selection , or by trial and error .
Second , there are trillions of these pairings that must happen and carry on at the same time .
And , third , this conundrum , in humans , often involves more than two parts .
Stepping back , for instance , opposing muscles need joints , innervating nerves , blood supply , and tendons .
Joints , at the same time , need cartilage , ligaments , fluid , nerves , and blood supply .
Bones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply , growth hormone , and nerves .
This can be taken back through uncountable conundrums , as an inverted pyramid , all the way back to fertilization .
And , basically back through generations to our beginning .
The answer , of course , is that the egg and the chicken must have come at the same time .
Alternate explanations are impossible .

Photo: Sperm, by Bobjgalindo / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Editor’s note: Dr. Simmons is a physician and the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
It turned out last week that scientists had been wrong for 350 years about how sperm swim. From Science Magazine:
Watch a human sperm under a microscope, and it will appear to swim like an eel wiggling its tail through the water. But a new study reveals that sperm actually swim in a much more chaotic manner — one they’ve been able to harness for maximal speed. Researchers scanned human sperm samples with a 3D microscope and a high-speed camera — one that could keep up with the speedy swimmers, which can manage 20 to 30 swimming strokes per second. Though in two dimensions sperm appear to lash their tail from side-to-side in symmetric strokes, the reproductive cells actually move in a lop-sided manner, beating their tails to one side only (as seen in the video above), the team reports today in Science Advances.
That is fascinating, but the revelation veils many mysteries.
Everyone is familiar with the riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This circular causality dilemma has been discussed by philosophers for ages, without resolution. When applied to the theory of human evolution, as one case, it brings out several interesting and damaging challenges. Just substitute the human female and her fertilized ovum (egg) into the riddle or the human male and his “speedy,” “lop-sided” sperm.
Man or Woman?
Or, you could ask whether a man or a woman came first. Religious texts say man preceded woman, by a very short period of time. Proponents of evolution, however, don’t clearly address the timing. To say humans evolved from apes, one must explain an uncountable number of viable, parallel, genetic steps (changes) in both sexes, at every twig and branch on the Tree of Life. There must have been pre-human males and females. And, before them, pre-pre matched pairs. And before them, pre-pre-pre matched pairs. And so on, going back to the primordial seas.
Evolutionists seem to assume that at least a pair of new, genetically matched animals of the opposite sex accidentally arrived at the same time(s). It’s the rabbit out of the hat trick, albeit two rabbits. After a few (not so) simple genetic tweaks, the Earth had air-breathing fish walking out of the sea, who knew what to eat on land and where to find it. Soon thereafter, in geological time, Orville and Wilbur Wright birds were taking off and safely landing, and eventually primates, who could dig insects out of logs, walk erect, and be trained to ride bicycles, appeared. Darwinian drawings make all this seem simple, like changing clothes, but scientists know that it isn’t. Virtually all intermediate, male-female pairs, possibly millions of them, are inconveniently missing from the fossil record.
One World Trade Center
This is not a discussion of natural selection or isolated mutations. Neither process can create a new species of our caliber. It is not about breeding a racing horse with a plow horse and getting a new version of a horse. Changing an ape’s zygote (first cells) into a human zygote would require many more steps than found in the One World Trade Center tower. Yet the Center serves as a good analogy. Note that virtually all stairs at the construction site had to be placed in order, at the right time, and in the right way. Step #1,011 could not be added until there were 1,010 stairs already in place. And, so it must go with the steps in evolution. Keep in mind, a biological skyscraper, such as a human being, might have billions of staircases.
Sexual partners had to come about in close proximity with the correct macro- and micro-apparatuses. Also, the two must have found each other irresistible. But there are a few genetic stumbling blocks here. Inbreeding dilutes the changes. Within a few generations, descendants from such a match return to their usual genotype and phenotype. Breeding with one’s own siblings and parents also dilutes genetic material and may lend itself to genetic crises.
The conundrum, asking which came first, can be applied to all human body parts, all cell parts, all chemistries, all electrical sources, and all genetic instructions. This includes every aspect of the female genitals (macroscopic and microscopic), different female hormones with reciprocal hormone receptor sites, and two ovaries, strategically placed within the pelvis. Although each ovary has 250,000 eggs, only one egg typically matures at a time. How is this determined? By the ovary or the ovum? Both male and female parts must arrive at the same time, in the right place, and be compatible with the counterpart. The male’s includes external genitals, male hormones, the correct hormone with the correct receptor sites, and an ability to quickly make, and remake, sperm. In actuality, there are millions, possibly billions, of genetic and chemical changes needed to convert an ape zygote into a human zygote. And multiply that by two (sexes).
Not only must the anatomical key properly fit, but there must be stimulating pheromones, visual cues, and foreplay to start everything off. There has to be something that gives the partners pleasure. Mandatory procreation probably failed the first time it was tried. Which came first, the sperms’ navigation systems or the egg’s GPS system? Both have a long, potentially dangerous journey before the rendezvous and another after fertilization. Did the two Fallopian tubes (narrow channels between the ovary and the uterus) precede the “sticky fingers” that catch a mature egg after it ovulates and drops? Did the egg’s ability to open its door to only one specific sperm come before the sperm’s ability to figuratively knock on the door? Did the mechanism to connect the male chromosomes to the female chromosomes arrive before chromosomes were made?
A Look Inside the Human Body
The chicken and egg conundrum seems to apply in virtually every system inside the human body.
Look at growth hormone and the millions of contractor bone cells with unique receptors. They build and shape bones; they repair fractures. The hormones, the receptors, and the workers are all needed at the same time and in the right places. Muscles could not have come about without tendons for anchoring them and nerves to stimulate them. Joints are useless without the presence of lubricating joint fluid, cartilage covering bone tips to dampen the banging traumas and ligaments for stability. Having only one hip socket doesn’t lend itself to a healthy existence. Fingers without joints would be of limited benefit. Joints without fluid would be hard to use. Joints without compartments to contain the fluid would be useless. Fingers without opposing muscles to flex and extend would be floppy appendages. And, a standout question is which came first, flexors or extensors for every moving part?
Which came first, two eyeballs or two eye sockets in the skull? Did eyelids come before eyelashes? Tear ducts before tear glands? Were the eyes properly spaced from the beginning or first found in unrelated locations? Which came first, the optic nerve in the back of the eye or the occipital lobes of the brain to interpret visual impulses? I could go on.
How a Darwinist Would Answer
A traditional Darwinist might argue that none of this matters. All congruent parts of chickens and eggs evolved together, from one size to another, from one color to another, from pre-pre chicken and pre-pre egg to pre-chicken and pre-egg to the chicken and the egg, and from one species to the next like an army marching forward, adding and subtracting troops as it goes.
There are several problems with this kind of thinking, however. First, there is no proof that any new and significant DNA information (blueprints) can actually be added accidentally, by natural selection, or by trial and error. Second, there are trillions of these pairings that must happen and carry on at the same time. And, third, this conundrum, in humans, often involves more than two parts. Stepping back, for instance, opposing muscles need joints, innervating nerves, blood supply, and tendons. Joints, at the same time, need cartilage, ligaments, fluid, nerves, and blood supply. Bones need carpenters, regeneration teams, blood supply, growth hormone, and nerves. This can be taken back through uncountable conundrums, as an inverted pyramid, all the way back to fertilization. And, basically back through generations to our beginning.
The answer, of course, is that the egg and the chicken must have come at the same time. Alternate explanations are impossible.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-05--When They Come for You — Some Helpful Tips

You know that Maoist struggle sessions are coming , and if you ’ re reading Evolution News sympathetically , you likely have a seat reserved for you , and it ’ ll be under a spotlight .
You may not be interested in Critical Theory , but Critical Theory is interested in you .
In universities and workplaces across the country folks are being asked to take a knee ( at least figuratively ) to the Frankfurt School and its heirs , and jobs and careers will depend on genuflection .
Of course , you can grovel , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more voraciously when they smell blood ) , or you can defy the totalitarians openly , thereby keeping your soul but probably not your job .
Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay , authors of the upcoming anti-wokeness book Cynical Theories , have an essay on the topic : “ How to talk to your employers about anti-racism.
” It ’ s a good essay , and their book promises to be a good book ( I ’ ve pre-ordered it ) .
They give a lot of advice , and they seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have the expertise to speak to that .
Please read the essay — they offer a systematic approach to safeguarding your sanity , your dignity , and hopefully your job in these times , and they give a nice synopsis of ( not nice ) Critical Theory .
They advocate specific tactics and strategies designed to deny your interrogators traction and to insulate yourself as much as possible from cancellation… …by making it clear that the Critical Social Justice framework is based on a very specificunderlying ideology that firstly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his or her business , and , secondly , that enforcing it on non-believers is a clear breach of freedom of belief ( which might even be legally actionable ) .
Therefore , we have developed a comprehensive letter template that people can pick and choose bits from and adapt to their own specific situation .
The letter needs to address both principles and practicalities and whatever the situation , there are two main points it is important to establish .
[ 1 ] That you are familiar with the main tenets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You are coming from a place of knowledge , not ignorance ; [ 2 ] That you fully support racial , gender , and LGBT equality .
You are coming from a place of egalitarian principles , not bigotry .
They go into a lot of detail , and overall , I think it ’ s good advice .
My own perspective is similar , but I won ’ t spend much energy proving that I am “ coming from a place of egalitarian principles , not bigotry.
” Where I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business , not that of some woke thug .
As Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observes , the fundamental goal of totalitarian coercion is to force you to censor yourself , and emphatic protestations using Critical Theory terminology to show that you are really on the same page as the Maoists — you just know how to do their ideology better than they do — is already a pretty serious level of capitulation .
My resolve is this : I will not participate in lies .
I will not repeat lies , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people telling lies .
This approach has its risks , but it seriously undercuts totalitarian tactics without requiring an aggressive response on my part .
I can go about my business , without playing a part in lies .
One bit of advice Pluckrose and Lindsay give strikes me as a very good idea .
They suggest : You can… ask your employer if they really intend to compel you and many of their employees to pretend to believe things that you do not believe to be either true or ethical .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly and combatively but to raise them as requests for reassurance which you are confident your employer will provide .
That said , slipping in the legally concerning phrases “ compelled speech , ” “ hostile working environment , ” and “ list-making ” might get their attention , as these will indicate potential legal exposure due to decisions being made in haste and without proper consideration of the ramifications .
I think the deeper wisdom in this — and it ’ s an approach I will use — is to raise implicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What do you know about Critical Theory ?
” “ How does using a Marxist/Freudian analysis of society advance justice and well-being ?
” “ Do you believe that explaining social dynamics as essentially power relationships really promotes peace and cooperation in our university/workplace ?
” “ What are the consequences for students/faculty/employees who have different perspectives ?
” “ Does ‘ Diversity ’ also mean diversity of opinion ?
” This strategy could be effective in dealing with the Darwinian totalitarians we ’ ve encountered over the past several decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ abhor having to explain themselves .
As a tactic , asking questions of interrogators ( rather than making assertions ) forces them to commit to ( or deny ) the core tenets of their ideology , which is generally not pretty and not something they care to do , in detail .
It also allows you to raise salient points to the interrogator and to the public without exposing yourself to cancellation due to your own assertions — you really haven ’ t asserted anything .
You ’ re just asking , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have such trouble giving credible answers .
There is no doubt that this will heat things up , but for me it seems the most effective way to resist .
We still have laws and a Constitution , and we ’ re not sending dissidents to gulags yet .
Make the interrogators explain themselves , and document it if possible .
It will make it clear to our interlocutors that we will not lie , but we want to know exactly what they mean , and we sure do have a lot @ @ @

Photo: Mausoleum of Chairman Mao, by Jp16103 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
You know that Maoist struggle sessions are coming, and if you’re reading Evolution News sympathetically, you likely have a seat reserved for you, and it’ll be under a spotlight. You may not be interested in Critical Theory, but Critical Theory is interested in you. In universities and workplaces across the country folks are being asked to take a knee (at least figuratively) to the Frankfurt School and its heirs, and jobs and careers will depend on genuflection. Of course, you can grovel, but that might not work anyway (they feed more voraciously when they smell blood), or you can defy the totalitarians openly, thereby keeping your soul but probably not your job.
Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, authors of the upcoming anti-wokeness book Cynical Theories, have an essay on the topic: “How to talk to your employers about anti-racism.” It’s a good essay, and their book promises to be a good book (I’ve pre-ordered it). They give a lot of advice, and they seem to have some legal savvy, although I don’t have the expertise to speak to that. Please read the essay — they offer a systematic approach to safeguarding your sanity, your dignity, and hopefully your job in these times, and they give a nice synopsis of (not nice) Critical Theory.
Tactics and Strategies
They advocate specific tactics and strategies designed to deny your interrogators traction and to insulate yourself as much as possible from cancellation…
…by making it clear that the Critical Social Justice framework is based on a very specific underlying ideology that firstly, their employer may not wish to tie to his or her business, and, secondly, that enforcing it on non-believers is a clear breach of freedom of belief (which might even be legally actionable). Therefore, we have developed a comprehensive letter template that people can pick and choose bits from and adapt to their own specific situation. The letter needs to address both principles and practicalities and whatever the situation, there are two main points it is important to establish. [1] That you are familiar with the main tenets of Critical Social Justice (CSJ). You are coming from a place of knowledge, not ignorance; [2] That you fully support racial, gender, and LGBT equality. You are coming from a place of egalitarian principles, not bigotry.
They go into a lot of detail, and overall, I think it’s good advice.
My own perspective is similar, but I won’t spend much energy proving that I am “coming from a place of egalitarian principles, not bigotry.” Where I’m “coming from” is my business, not that of some woke thug. As Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observes, the fundamental goal of totalitarian coercion is to force you to censor yourself, and emphatic protestations using Critical Theory terminology to show that you are really on the same page as the Maoists — you just know how to do their ideology better than they do — is already a pretty serious level of capitulation. My resolve is this: I will not participate in lies. I will not repeat lies, and I will not remain in the presence of people telling lies. This approach has its risks, but it seriously undercuts totalitarian tactics without requiring an aggressive response on my part. I can go about my business, without playing a part in lies.
The Deeper Wisdom
One bit of advice Pluckrose and Lindsay give strikes me as a very good idea. They suggest:
You can… ask your employer if they really intend to compel you and many of their employees to pretend to believe things that you do not believe to be either true or ethical. It is probably better not to ask this directly and combatively but to raise them as requests for reassurance which you are confident your employer will provide. That said, slipping in the legally concerning phrases “compelled speech,” “hostile working environment,” and “list-making” might get their attention, as these will indicate potential legal exposure due to decisions being made in haste and without proper consideration of the ramifications.
I think the deeper wisdom in this — and it’s an approach I will use — is to raise implicit objections in the form of questions. “What do you know about Critical Theory?” “How does using a Marxist/Freudian analysis of society advance justice and well-being?” “Do you believe that explaining social dynamics as essentially power relationships really promotes peace and cooperation in our university/workplace?” “What are the consequences for students/faculty/employees who have different perspectives?” “Does ‘Diversity’ also mean diversity of opinion?”
Woke Thugs and Darwinist Thugs
This strategy could be effective in dealing with the Darwinian totalitarians we’ve encountered over the past several decades. Woke thugs, like Darwinist thugs, abhor having to explain themselves. As a tactic, asking questions of interrogators (rather than making assertions) forces them to commit to (or deny) the core tenets of their ideology, which is generally not pretty and not something they care to do, in detail. It also allows you to raise salient points to the interrogator and to the public without exposing yourself to cancellation due to your own assertions — you really haven’t asserted anything. You’re just asking, and you find it hard to understand why they have such trouble giving credible answers.
There is no doubt that this will heat things up, but for me it seems the most effective way to resist. We still have laws and a Constitution, and we’re not sending dissidents to gulags yet. Make the interrogators explain themselves, and document it if possible. It will make it clear to our interlocutors that we will not lie, but we want to know exactly what they mean, and we sure do have a lot of questions.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-05--Whales — Time to Put Evolution’s Exhausted “Poster Child” to Rest

“ Fortunately for us , the whale fossil record is so remarkably represented that scientists have even called the whale ‘ a poster child of evolution.
’ ” So states , in a breezy fashion , a recent article by biology PhD student Ellen Coombs at The Conversation .
This echoes other evolution advocates , including a biology journal , BioScience , touting “ Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution.
” True , it ’ s a commonplace in discussions of evolution ’ s strengths and ( zero ) weaknesses : whales are held to be emblematic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining biological origins .
They are “ one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition , ” as Jerry Coyne assures his readers .
A series of brief videos from Discovery Institute , Long Story Short , has been considering whale evolution , and the two videos so far on the subject caught the attention of critics .
The dispute has led to a productive exchange .
See : Now find the latest here , a second rebuttal : The argument about whales turns on two points : “ Population genetics calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil find throws the series into disarray.
” The filmmaker , whom we ’ re calling Long Story , is a wry but also very substantive debater .
In the new video , he spars with Jackson Wheat , co-author of The Rocks Were There , whose response you can find here .
Long Story apologizes for the technical nature of the discussion but I think it shows , as he puts it at the end , that the beef is missing from claims for whales like Dr. Coyne ’ s , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to retire the whale series as evidence for neo-Darwinism.
” Truer than They Know “ Poster child , ” by the way , is an interesting formulation , truer than Darwinists seem to realize .
As Wikipedia says , it refers to , “ according to the original meaning of the term , a child afflicted by some disease or deformity whose picture is used on posters or other media as part of a campaign to raise money or enlist volunteers for a cause or organization.
” In other words , being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on crutches and possibly exploited for his impairment , is not something you ’ d wish on a person .
Not on a whale either .
You ’ d rather be that than a milk carton kid…but not by much .

“Fortunately for us, the whale fossil record is so remarkably represented that scientists have even called the whale ‘a poster child of evolution.’” So states, in a breezy fashion, a recent article by biology PhD student Ellen Coombs at The Conversation. This echoes other evolution advocates, including a biology journal, BioScience, touting “Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution.”
True, it’s a commonplace in discussions of evolution’s strengths and (zero) weaknesses: whales are held to be emblematic of Darwinian theory’s splendid success in explaining biological origins. They are “one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” as Jerry Coyne assures his readers. A series of brief videos from Discovery Institute, Long Story Short, has been considering whale evolution, and the two videos so far on the subject caught the attention of critics. The dispute has led to a productive exchange. See:
Now find the latest here, a second rebuttal:
The argument about whales turns on two points: “Population genetics calculations say no,” and “New fossil find throws the series into disarray.” The filmmaker, whom we’re calling Long Story, is a wry but also very substantive debater. In the new video, he spars with Jackson Wheat, co-author of The Rocks Were There, whose response you can find here. Long Story apologizes for the technical nature of the discussion but I think it shows, as he puts it at the end, that the beef is missing from claims for whales like Dr. Coyne’s, and therefore, “It might just be time to retire the whale series as evidence for neo-Darwinism.”
Truer than They Know
“Poster child,” by the way, is an interesting formulation, truer than Darwinists seem to realize. As Wikipedia says, it refers to, “according to the original meaning of the term, a child afflicted by some disease or deformity whose picture is used on posters or other media as part of a campaign to raise money or enlist volunteers for a cause or organization.” In other words, being a poster child, disabled and hobbling on crutches and possibly exploited for his impairment, is not something you’d wish on a person. Not on a whale either. You’d rather be that than a milk carton kid…but not by much.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-05--Nature’s Magic and Its Breathtaking Parsimony

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
One of the more remarkable aspects of the unique system described in the last post in this series , which no researcher to my knowledge has highlighted , is the fact that the same vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic physiological functioning of the cells in the leaf and particularly for the process of photosynthesis , is the very same fluid that possesses just the right “ Goldilocks ” physical properties — tensile strength and surface tension — to raise it from the soil to the leaf .
So water not only provides one of the key chemicals in the process of photosynthesis , not only provides the ideal matrix for the physiological functioning of the cells in the leaf , but also amazingly provides through its own intrinsic powers a unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the leaves .
Just another example of the breathtaking parsimony of nature ’ s magic — using the same substance or process to achieve completely diverse ends which work together to serve the end of life as it exist on Earth .
Why Trees Are Possible Trees are only possible because of an ensemble of elements of fitness in nature — the physical factors that prevent leaves from overheating in the sun , the unique properties of the cellulose lignin composite that confer tensile strength and durability to tree trunks and promotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique mechanism to raise water to the top of tall trees .
Trees only exist because the physical properties of water including its tensile strength and density are exactly as they are , and only because the force of surface tension generated in small tubes is as strong as it is , and only because the laws of hydraulics are precisely as they are .
Without this ensemble of fitness in nature , there would be no wood , no fire , no metallurgy , no modern technology .
And nature would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique physical adaptations and cognitive powers to understand the world .
It is intriguing that the unique fitness in nature for large trees , which might appear at first somewhat esoteric , turns out to be a crucial element of fitness which made possible our exploration and understanding of the world .
It is yet another ensemble of fitness supportive of the anthropocentric notion of a world order uniquely fit for our being .

Photo credit: Gilly Stewart via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
One of the more remarkable aspects of the unique system described in the last post in this series, which no researcher to my knowledge has highlighted, is the fact that the same vital fluid which is so essential to the basic physiological functioning of the cells in the leaf and particularly for the process of photosynthesis, is the very same fluid that possesses just the right “Goldilocks” physical properties — tensile strength and surface tension — to raise it from the soil to the leaf. So water not only provides one of the key chemicals in the process of photosynthesis, not only provides the ideal matrix for the physiological functioning of the cells in the leaf, but also amazingly provides through its own intrinsic powers a unique means of raising itself from the roots to the leaves. Just another example of the breathtaking parsimony of nature’s magic — using the same substance or process to achieve completely diverse ends which work together to serve the end of life as it exist on Earth.
Why Trees Are Possible
Trees are only possible because of an ensemble of elements of fitness in nature — the physical factors that prevent leaves from overheating in the sun, the unique properties of the cellulose lignin composite that confer tensile strength and durability to tree trunks and promotes the formation of soil, and the unique mechanism to raise water to the top of tall trees. Trees only exist because the physical properties of water including its tensile strength and density are exactly as they are, and only because the force of surface tension generated in small tubes is as strong as it is, and only because the laws of hydraulics are precisely as they are.
Without this ensemble of fitness in nature, there would be no wood, no fire, no metallurgy, no modern technology. And nature would not be fit for humans to utilize their unique physical adaptations and cognitive powers to understand the world. It is intriguing that the unique fitness in nature for large trees, which might appear at first somewhat esoteric, turns out to be a crucial element of fitness which made possible our exploration and understanding of the world. It is yet another ensemble of fitness supportive of the anthropocentric notion of a world order uniquely fit for our being.
Tomorrow, “How Man Became the Fire-Maker.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-06--Evolution Can’t Explain Sexual Modesty; Why Not?

Wesley Smith draws our attention to a profound question that evolution , clearly , is not up for addressing .
Why do humans in cultures around the world insist on privacy in intimacy ?
You could broaden the question : Why do humans practice sexual modesty at all , in dress , speech , and other matters ?
Of course the latter is culturally contingent but if there ’ s a culture known to history that practiced universal nudism , I ’ m not aware of it .
Anthropologist Yitzchak Ben Mocha at Zürich University grappled with the intimacy question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans are almost unique .
A bird species , the Arabian babbler ( pictured above ) , alone joins us in seeking privacy for mating .
Fascinating .
Ben Mocha has a theory and spins a story : Ben Mocha concludes his paper by introducing a theory of his own — he believes that the reason humans ( and babblers ) began looking for privacy during sex was because the male wanted to prevent other males from seeing his female partner in a state of arousal .
Such a state , he suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attempt to mate with her .
Thus , privacy , or perhaps more accurately , seclusion , allowed the male to maintain control over a sexual partner — while also allowing for continued cooperation within a group .
But this overlooks why ONLY humans ( and Arabian babblers ) do this although from an evolutionary perspective “ maintain [ ing ] control over a sexual partner ” while at the same time “ allowing for continued cooperation within a group ” would not seem to be imperatives unique to humans .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mating in public and giving no thought to covering up with clothing .
It ’ s the human exception that needs explaining , so citing factors that are far from exceptional to humans as an explanation is not going to persuade me .
It ’ s something I stumbled on this week on the movie database IMDb , a scene from a 1914 tearjerker .
The man on the left is my grandfather , who made a long list of convoluted melodramas in the silent film era .
The woman on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I showed the photo to a friend , he was surprised by the lady ’ s décolletage .
A bit daring for 1914 ?
I pointed out that this was well before the Hays Code ( 1934-1968 ) , which imposed strict morals on Hollywood , even limiting how long characters could be shown kissing on screen .
You may remember Lucy and Ricky Ricardo ’ s bedroom with its twin beds .
Same reason .
To Take Down a Culture Only humans would care about such things .
Wesley raises the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like ours , often take the form of undermining standards of modesty in speech and behavior .
You may have seen the photo , taken from the back , of the young woman in Portland .
Amid the Antifa disorder , she posed in the middle of the street , before the befuddled police , seated naked in the most immodest pose that there could be .
This was her “ protest , ” and for all that it shocks , it was eloquent in its way .
The “ protestors ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture .
It ’ s noteworthy that evolutionists can ’ t explain any of this , a failure that itself speaks loudly and eloquently to the limits of materialist science .
Darwinism is supposed to be a universal theory about biological diversity advancing through reproduction .
Could such a basic observation about sex be beyond its scope ?
Apparently .

Photo: An Arabian babbler, by Yoavd / Public domain.
Wesley Smith draws our attention to a profound question that evolution, clearly, is not up for addressing. Why do humans in cultures around the world insist on privacy in intimacy? You could broaden the question: Why do humans practice sexual modesty at all, in dress, speech, and other matters? Of course the latter is culturally contingent but if there’s a culture known to history that practiced universal nudism, I’m not aware of it.
Anthropologist Yitzchak Ben Mocha at Zürich University grappled with the intimacy question and came up with the answer that humans are almost unique. A bird species, the Arabian babbler (pictured above), alone joins us in seeking privacy for mating. Fascinating. Ben Mocha has a theory and spins a story:
Ben Mocha concludes his paper by introducing a theory of his own — he believes that the reason humans (and babblers) began looking for privacy during sex was because the male wanted to prevent other males from seeing his female partner in a state of arousal. Such a state, he suggests, would likely have encouraged other males to attempt to mate with her. Thus, privacy, or perhaps more accurately, seclusion, allowed the male to maintain control over a sexual partner — while also allowing for continued cooperation within a group.
But this overlooks why ONLY humans (and Arabian babblers) do this although from an evolutionary perspective “maintain[ing] control over a sexual partner” while at the same time “allowing for continued cooperation within a group” would not seem to be imperatives unique to humans. Other animal species thrive and do just fine, mating in public and giving no thought to covering up with clothing. It’s the human exception that needs explaining, so citing factors that are far from exceptional to humans as an explanation is not going to persuade me.
A Different Standard
Here’s a photo that represents one standard:
It’s something I stumbled on this week on the movie database IMDb, a scene from a 1914 tearjerker. The man on the left is my grandfather, who made a long list of convoluted melodramas in the silent film era. The woman on the right is his favorite leading lady. When I showed the photo to a friend, he was surprised by the lady’s décolletage. A bit daring for 1914? I pointed out that this was well before the Hays Code (1934-1968), which imposed strict morals on Hollywood, even limiting how long characters could be shown kissing on screen. You may remember Lucy and Ricky Ricardo’s bedroom with its twin beds. Same reason.
To Take Down a Culture
Only humans would care about such things. Wesley raises the question of why attacks on a culture, like ours, often take the form of undermining standards of modesty in speech and behavior. You may have seen the photo, taken from the back, of the young woman in Portland. Amid the Antifa disorder, she posed in the middle of the street, before the befuddled police, seated naked in the most immodest pose that there could be. This was her “protest,” and for all that it shocks, it was eloquent in its way. The “protestors” are indeed trying to take down our culture.
It’s noteworthy that evolutionists can’t explain any of this, a failure that itself speaks loudly and eloquently to the limits of materialist science. Darwinism is supposed to be a universal theory about biological diversity advancing through reproduction. Could such a basic observation about sex be beyond its scope? Apparently.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-06--Privacy in Human Intimacy Isn’t About Evolution

Recently , anthropologist Yitzchak Ben Mocha theorized on why human beings , alone among mammals , prefer to “ mate ” in private .
From the Phys.org story : He found that virtually every known culture practices private mating — even in places where privacy is difficult to find .
He also looked for examples of other animals mating in private , and found none , except for the babblers [ a bird species ] .
He also found that there were no explanations for it , and in fact , there were very few other people wondering why humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not surprisingly , he was unable to find any evolutionary theories on the topic .
But evolution must be made to explain all !
Ben Mocha concludes his paper by introducing a theory of his own — he believes that the reason humans ( and babblers ) began looking for privacy during sex was because the male wanted to prevent other males from seeing his female partner in a state of arousal .
Such a state , he suggests , would likely have encouraged other males to attempt to mate with her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurately , seclusion , allowed the male to maintain control over a sexual partner — while also allowing for continued cooperation within a group .
This approaches the question from the wrong angle .
There is much more to human life than biology .
We are not just a collection of carbon molecules and the sum of our genes expressing .
We are more than intelligent apes .
There is a deeper side to us , something that can neither be measured nor fully explained from exclusively materialistic analyses .
We transcend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We , alone in the known universe , are moral beings .
Sex is profoundly consequential morally .
We are not just animals yielding to an irresistible biological imperative when the female goes into estrus .
For us , intimacy isn ’ t — or ideally , shouldn ’ t be — mere rutting .
Moreover , sex is something we can choose to refuse based on moral considerations .
Animals do not have that ability .
Indeed , sexual morality is one of the most important factors in creating culture .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy existing paradigms subvert the cultural status quo through transgressive sexual advocacy and/or behavior .
Bottom line : Evolution doesn ’ t explain everything in human nature or the development of culture .
It can ’ t .
We have stepped beyond subjugation to the immutable forces of natural selection .
We are self-directing , and that includes our approaches to sex .
Abandon human exceptionalism in anthropology , treat us as if we are just another animal in the forest , and the discipline misses the forest for the trees .

Photo credit: Kinga Cichewicz, via Unsplash.
Recently, anthropologist Yitzchak Ben Mocha theorized on why human beings, alone among mammals, prefer to “mate” in private. From the Phys.org story:
He found that virtually every known culture practices private mating — even in places where privacy is difficult to find. He also looked for examples of other animals mating in private, and found none, except for the babblers [a bird species]. He also found that there were no explanations for it, and in fact, there were very few other people wondering why humans have such a proclivity. And, not surprisingly, he was unable to find any evolutionary theories on the topic.
But evolution must be made to explain all!
Ben Mocha concludes his paper by introducing a theory of his own — he believes that the reason humans (and babblers) began looking for privacy during sex was because the male wanted to prevent other males from seeing his female partner in a state of arousal. Such a state, he suggests, would likely have encouraged other males to attempt to mate with her. Thus, privacy, or perhaps more accurately, seclusion, allowed the male to maintain control over a sexual partner — while also allowing for continued cooperation within a group.
The Wrong Angle
This approaches the question from the wrong angle. There is much more to human life than biology. We are not just a collection of carbon molecules and the sum of our genes expressing. We are more than intelligent apes. There is a deeper side to us, something that can neither be measured nor fully explained from exclusively materialistic analyses.
We transcend the strictly material forces that spur natural selection. We, alone in the known universe, are moral beings.
Sex is profoundly consequential morally. We are not just animals yielding to an irresistible biological imperative when the female goes into estrus. For us, intimacy isn’t — or ideally, shouldn’t be — mere rutting. Moreover, sex is something we can choose to refuse based on moral considerations. Animals do not have that ability.
Indeed, sexual morality is one of the most important factors in creating culture. That is the reason those who wish to destroy existing paradigms subvert the cultural status quo through transgressive sexual advocacy and/or behavior.
Bottom line: Evolution doesn’t explain everything in human nature or the development of culture. It can’t. We have stepped beyond subjugation to the immutable forces of natural selection. We are self-directing, and that includes our approaches to sex.
Abandon human exceptionalism in anthropology, treat us as if we are just another animal in the forest, and the discipline misses the forest for the trees.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-06--How Man Became the Fire-Maker

How Man Became the Fire-Maker

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
Seeing the perfection of the hand , we can hardly be surprised that some philosophers should have entertained the opinion with Anaxagoras , that the superiority of man is owing to his hand… [ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have the consummation of all perfection as an instrument .
Charles Bell , The Hand : Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments , as Evincing Design , in The Bridgewater Treatises , Vol .
IV ( Philadelphia : Carey , Lea and Blanchard , 1833 ) , 157 .
As we have seen in this series so far , there is a remarkable suite of elements of fitness in nature for the harnessing of fire and for the development of metallurgy .
But in order for fire to unlock the vast potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead to major technological advances , one more thing is necessary .
There must also be a creature capable of maintaining and controlling fire , of building kilns , of mining for ores , of felling trees and manufacturing charcoal , and so on .
On our planet there is one such creature uniquely endowed for the task : our own species , Homo sapiens .
One of the unique things about modern humans that allowed us to master fire and metallurgy and develop an advanced technology is of course our high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our technological empowerment and our advance from the Stone Age to our modern 21st-century industrial society depended on more than just our high intelligence .
It also depended critically on a number of additional factors , including our possessing a unique suit of physical attributes .
Being terrestrial is one obvious requirement .
No fully aquatic species could master fire and thus develop metallurgy and the host of fire-assisted technologies from glass-making to chemistry that enabled our own species to explore and ultimately comprehend the world .
It is impossible to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how intelligent — could develop any technology utilizing fire in any sort of underwater environment .
In addition to our being a terrestrial organism , it was our unique upright android design and possession of that supreme manipulative instrument — the human hand — which in conjunction with our high intelligence enabled our species to manipulate and master fire and develop over subsequent centuries an advanced technology that has enabled us to pry open nature ’ s deepest secrets .

Photo: Glass-making, by Hessam / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
Seeing the perfection of the hand, we can hardly be surprised that some philosophers should have entertained the opinion with Anaxagoras, that the superiority of man is owing to his hand… [I]t is in the human hand that we have the consummation of all perfection as an instrument. Charles Bell, The Hand: Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments, as Evincing Design, in The Bridgewater Treatises, Vol. IV (Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1833), 157.
As we have seen in this series so far, there is a remarkable suite of elements of fitness in nature for the harnessing of fire and for the development of metallurgy. But in order for fire to unlock the vast potential of metals, in order for it to lead to major technological advances, one more thing is necessary. There must also be a creature capable of maintaining and controlling fire, of building kilns, of mining for ores, of felling trees and manufacturing charcoal, and so on. On our planet there is one such creature uniquely endowed for the task: our own species, Homo sapiens.
One of the unique things about modern humans that allowed us to master fire and metallurgy and develop an advanced technology is of course our high intelligence compared with any other species. But our technological empowerment and our advance from the Stone Age to our modern 21st-century industrial society depended on more than just our high intelligence. It also depended critically on a number of additional factors, including our possessing a unique suit of physical attributes.
A Terrestrial Life
Being terrestrial is one obvious requirement. No fully aquatic species could master fire and thus develop metallurgy and the host of fire-assisted technologies from glass-making to chemistry that enabled our own species to explore and ultimately comprehend the world. It is impossible to imagine how an aquatic species — no matter how intelligent — could develop any technology utilizing fire in any sort of underwater environment.
In addition to our being a terrestrial organism, it was our unique upright android design and possession of that supreme manipulative instrument — the human hand — which in conjunction with our high intelligence enabled our species to manipulate and master fire and develop over subsequent centuries an advanced technology that has enabled us to pry open nature’s deepest secrets.
Tomorrow, “Being the Right Size.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-07--“Living Fossil”? Maybe. Tuatara Genome Is Now Sequenced and Published

Often referred to as “ living fossils ” ( although this is a subject of much controversy ) , the @ @ @ @ @ endemic to New Zealand .
Nature has published its newly sequenced genome as open access @ @ @ @ @ reveals ancient features of amniote evolution.
” The tuatara genome is 5GB , making it @ @ @ @ @ — and full of surprises .
BTW , tuataras can live a LONG time ( @ @ @ @ @ or more ) , so if you see one , make sure he or she @ @ @ @ @ preferred seating on the aisle .

Photo credit: KeresH / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0).
Often referred to as “living fossils” (although this is a subject of much controversy), the tuatara is a fascinating taxon endemic to New Zealand. Nature has published its newly sequenced genome as open access: “The tuatara genome reveals ancient features of amniote evolution.”
The tuatara genome is 5GB, making it enormous relative to other vertebrates — and full of surprises. BTW, tuataras can live a LONG time (up to a hundred years or more), so if you see one, make sure he or she receives the senior discount and preferred seating on the aisle.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-07--Human Engineers Can’t Top These Biological Intelligent Designs

Amid the often-depressing news of Darwin censorship and dogmatism , with its ongoing ill effects on society like eugenics and racism , it is good to take a break and see what intelligent design science is accomplishing , whether it calls itself that or not .
That is what biomimetics is all about : a focus on design , to understand it and imitate it .
Here are just a few examples of what is being reported on a weekly basis from labs and universities around the world .
The Surf Engineering Association is studying HUMPBACK WHALE flippers to improve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We found using RW [ ‘ real whale ’ ] fins allowed a skilled surfer to improve their surfing performance relative to a professionally ranked surfer.
” ( PLoS One ) .
The fluid motion of a humble SEA SLUG in water gave engineers at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart , Germany , inspiration for “ A robot made from gel bends in response to light , allowing for a wide variety of motions.
” ( Nature ) .
Cephalopods have amazed scientists at the University of California at Irvine with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and off at will .
By adjusting their leucophores containing reflectin proteins , SQUID can become opaque or transparent .
The team engineered human cells with a similar trick .
It might help with microscopy and with medicine , allowing surgeons to mark cells with light .
Question : is there money in biomimetics ?
Cervical cancer , the fourth most common cancer in women , may be stopped in its tracks by a molecule called manzamine A , found in an Indonesian species of SPONGE .
( Medical University of South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fine pore structure that could inspire greener storage in hydrogen-powered cars .
A researcher at Northwestern University developed a spongy material out of aluminum with so many pores , a gram of it has the surface area of a football field .
“ Like a bath SPONGE , the product is able to hold and release large quantities of the gas at lower pressure and cost.
” ( BBC News ) Engineers at the University of Pennsylvania envision many useful applications with “ uniform-sized , ( sub ) micrometer-sized particles with diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications including drug delivery , tissue engineering , energy storage , and displays.
” They found a perfect biological entity to imitate : POLLEN GRAINS .
( PNAS ) Robot designers at UC Berkeley are finding out that to climb walls like a GECKO , their creations need toes .
With toes that stick in one direction and peel in the opposite direction , geckos can go up , down , and sideways with ease .
The design team lit up the toes with glowing markers to watch how they work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ INSECT that lives as an endoparasite of a paper wasp , are unusual .
Unlike the compound eyes of most insects , theirs have hundreds of photoreceptors in a single lens .
Scientists in South Korea have “ demonstrated a fully packaged ultrathin insect eye camera ” made on similar principles which offers “ offers high contrast and super-resolution imaging ” ( Nature , Phys.org ) .
One of the “ smallest and most dexterous robots to date ” has been designed at Harvard ’ s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COCKROACH .
About the size of a penny , “ This itsy-bitsy robot can ’ t climb up the waterspout yet but it can run , jump , carry heavy payloads and turn on a dime.
” “ Nature is the best teacher of mankind , ” say researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences .
Like good students , they learned from the compound eyes of INSECTS to develop a “ Multispectral Curved Compound Eye Camera with Ultra Large Field View ” — but what will those eyes be looking at on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with biology ?
Plenty , say scientists at UC Irvine .
Membrane channels in CELLS are giving them a new way to re-imagine electronic circuits .
Proteins can conduct electricity , and one advantage they have is being “ green.
” Using protein nanowires from the Geobacter BACTERIUM , a “ team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst reports this week that they have developed bioelectronic ammonia gas sensors that are among the most sensitive ever made.
” Inspired by how a CHAMELEON can change its skin color , researchers at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responds to motion by changing color .
“ Unlike other materials that try to emulate nature ’ s color changers , this one can respond to any type of movement , like bending or twisting.
” A color change could provide information about an environment , they say .
ANTS have an arsenal of tools for sampling their environment .
They do this in a distributed way , using many individuals to avoid wasting energy .
Researchers at the University of Bristol “ observed the exploratory behaviour of ants to inform the development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Overlapping fish scales , like those on CARP , have inspired armor since ancient times .
Now , scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab “ have characterized carp scales down to the nanoscale , enabling them to understand how the material is resistant to penetration while retaining flexibility.
” A long-time inspiration for biomimetics is SPIDER silk , but for optics ?
This is new .
Researchers at Tamkang University and National Yang-Ming University in Taiwan demonstrated that droplets of the silk form miniature lenses with super-resolution optical properties for bioimaging .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the silk threads for easy placement and can be illuminated with lasers .
( Journal of Applied Physics ) Human engineers mastered sonar decades ago , but the properties of BAT biosonar keep pushing the envelope for them .
One trick bats use is frequency hopping , to gain information from delays at different frequencies .
Researchers are Brown University developed a “ biologically inspired method adopts the bat ’ s frequency-hopping technique to suppress pulse-echo ambiguity in wideband systems , a serious problem for man-made wideband radar and sonar systems.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning from BIRDS , keep improving on flight at smaller scales .
A new drone made at the Nanyang Technical University in Singapore can “ fly , dart and hover like a bird , ” reports New Scientist .
“ The robot weighs just 27.5 grams and can fly at speeds of up to 8 metres per second , ” the report says .
“ It lasts up to 8 minutes in the air on a single battery charge.
” Getting it to lay eggs will take a little longer .
Several big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One is that biomimetics is a global trend .
From China to Southern California , from Harvard to South Korea , scientists are getting inspired with biological designs .
A second big idea is that design is everywhere in the living world .
From cell membranes to giant whales , from cockroaches to sea slugs , there are designs to be found : who would have thought that the eye of a parasite of a paper wasp would inspire the development of a micro-camera ?
Finally , these are great designs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could do better .
Instead , it is evident that they are still having trouble imitating some of nature ’ s works even after decades of trying .
There is endless fascination in nature — the best teacher — and it will undoubtedly continue to stimulate cutting-edge , next-generation technology in science and engineering for years to come .

Photo: A humpback whale, by Whit Welles Wwelles14 / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0).
Amid the often-depressing news of Darwin censorship and dogmatism, with its ongoing ill effects on society like eugenics and racism, it is good to take a break and see what intelligent design science is accomplishing, whether it calls itself that or not. That is what biomimetics is all about: a focus on design, to understand it and imitate it. Here are just a few examples of what is being reported on a weekly basis from labs and universities around the world.
Making Better Surfboards
The Surf Engineering Association is studying HUMPBACK WHALE flippers to improve surfboards. Does it help? “We found using RW [‘real whale’] fins allowed a skilled surfer to improve their surfing performance relative to a professionally ranked surfer.” (PLoS One).
The fluid motion of a humble SEA SLUG in water gave engineers at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, inspiration for “A robot made from gel bends in response to light, allowing for a wide variety of motions.” (Nature).
Cephalopods have amazed scientists at the University of California at Irvine with their transparency, which they can turn on and off at will. By adjusting their leucophores containing reflectin proteins, SQUID can become opaque or transparent. The team engineered human cells with a similar trick. It might help with microscopy and with medicine, allowing surgeons to mark cells with light. Question: is there money in biomimetics?
This project, which received support from Defense Applied Research Projects Agency and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, also involved researchers from the University of California, San Diego and Hamamatsu Photonics in Japan. [Emphasis added.]
Cervical cancer, the fourth most common cancer in women, may be stopped in its tracks by a molecule called manzamine A, found in an Indonesian species of SPONGE. (Medical University of South Carolina)
Hydrogen-Powered Cars
Speaking of sponges, they have a fine pore structure that could inspire greener storage in hydrogen-powered cars. A researcher at Northwestern University developed a spongy material out of aluminum with so many pores, a gram of it has the surface area of a football field. “Like a bath SPONGE, the product is able to hold and release large quantities of the gas at lower pressure and cost.” (BBC News)
Engineers at the University of Pennsylvania envision many useful applications with “uniform-sized, (sub)micrometer-sized particles with diverse surface patterns” that “will enable applications including drug delivery, tissue engineering, energy storage, and displays.” They found a perfect biological entity to imitate: POLLEN GRAINS. (PNAS)
Robot designers at UC Berkeley are finding out that to climb walls like a GECKO, their creations need toes. With toes that stick in one direction and peel in the opposite direction, geckos can go up, down, and sideways with ease. The design team lit up the toes with glowing markers to watch how they work.
“Toes allowed agile locomotion by distributing control among multiple, compliant, redundant structures that mitigate the risks of moving on challenging terrain,” [Robert] Full said. “Distributed control shows how biological adhesion can be deployed more effectively and offers design ideas for new robot feet, novel grippers and unique manipulators.”
The eyes of Xenos peckii, a tiny INSECT that lives as an endoparasite of a paper wasp, are unusual. Unlike the compound eyes of most insects, theirs have hundreds of photoreceptors in a single lens. Scientists in South Korea have “demonstrated a fully packaged ultrathin insect eye camera” made on similar principles which offers “offers high contrast and super-resolution imaging” (Nature, Phys.org).
Inspired by the Cockroach
One of the “smallest and most dexterous robots to date” has been designed at Harvard’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Its inspiration was the COCKROACH. About the size of a penny, “This itsy-bitsy robot can’t climb up the waterspout yet but it can run, jump, carry heavy payloads and turn on a dime.”
“Nature is the best teacher of mankind,” say researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Like good students, they learned from the compound eyes of INSECTS to develop a “Multispectral Curved Compound Eye Camera with Ultra Large Field View” — but what will those eyes be looking at on Chinese satellites?
What does electronics have to do with biology? Plenty, say scientists at UC Irvine. Membrane channels in CELLS are giving them a new way to re-imagine electronic circuits.
Integrated circuits are present in all electronic devices, and enable signal amplification, modulation, and relay. Nature uses another type of circuits composed of channels in a cell membrane, which regulate and amplify transport of ions, not electrons and holes as is done in electronic systems. Here we show an abiotic ionic circuit that is inspired by concepts from electronics and biology. The circuit amplifies small ionic signals into ionic outputs, and its operation mimics the electronic Darlington amplifier composed of transistors…. Ionic amplifiers are a logical step toward improving chemical and biochemical sensing, separations and amplification, among others. Nature Communications
Proteins can conduct electricity, and one advantage they have is being “green.” Using protein nanowires from the Geobacter BACTERIUM, a “team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst reports this week that they have developed bioelectronic ammonia gas sensors that are among the most sensitive ever made.”
Inspired by how a CHAMELEON can change its skin color, researchers at UC Irvine have created a material that responds to motion by changing color. “Unlike other materials that try to emulate nature’s color changers, this one can respond to any type of movement, like bending or twisting.” A color change could provide information about an environment, they say.
Ants and Their Arsenal
ANTS have an arsenal of tools for sampling their environment. They do this in a distributed way, using many individuals to avoid wasting energy. Researchers at the University of Bristol “observed the exploratory behaviour of ants to inform the development of a more efficient mathematical sampling technique.”
Overlapping fish scales, like those on CARP, have inspired armor since ancient times. Now, scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab “have characterized carp scales down to the nanoscale, enabling them to understand how the material is resistant to penetration while retaining flexibility.”
“The structure of biological materials is absolutely fascinating,” said lead author Robert Ritchie, of Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, who headed this work with Marc Meyers, a professor of nanoengineering and mechanical engineering at UC San Diego. “We like to mimic these properties in engineering materials, but the first step is to see how nature does it.”
A long-time inspiration for biomimetics is SPIDER silk, but for optics? This is new. Researchers at Tamkang University and National Yang-Ming University in Taiwan demonstrated that droplets of the silk form miniature lenses with super-resolution optical properties for bioimaging. Not only that, the lenses hang on the silk threads for easy placement and can be illuminated with lasers. (Journal of Applied Physics)
Human engineers mastered sonar decades ago, but the properties of BAT biosonar keep pushing the envelope for them. One trick bats use is frequency hopping, to gain information from delays at different frequencies. Researchers are Brown University developed a “biologically inspired method adopts the bat’s frequency-hopping technique to suppress pulse-echo ambiguity in wideband systems, a serious problem for man-made wideband radar and sonar systems.” (PNAS)
Modern-day Wright brothers, learning from BIRDS, keep improving on flight at smaller scales. A new drone made at the Nanyang Technical University in Singapore can “fly, dart and hover like a bird,” reports New Scientist. “The robot weighs just 27.5 grams and can fly at speeds of up to 8 metres per second,” the report says. “It lasts up to 8 minutes in the air on a single battery charge.” Getting it to lay eggs will take a little longer.
A Global Trend
Several big ideas come to light from these examples. One is that biomimetics is a global trend. From China to Southern California, from Harvard to South Korea, scientists are getting inspired with biological designs. A second big idea is that design is everywhere in the living world. From cell membranes to giant whales, from cockroaches to sea slugs, there are designs to be found: who would have thought that the eye of a parasite of a paper wasp would inspire the development of a micro-camera?
Finally, these are great designs in nature. Engineers would be scoffing if they could do better. Instead, it is evident that they are still having trouble imitating some of nature’s works even after decades of trying. There is endless fascination in nature — the best teacher — and it will undoubtedly continue to stimulate cutting-edge, next-generation technology in science and engineering for years to come.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-07--Remarkably, Humans Are Just the Right Size to Make and Master Fire

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
One need only recall how difficult it is to start a fire using traditional frictional methods ( such as rubbing two pieces of wood together ) , even with the superb manipulative abilities of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our ability among all organisms on Earth to make and master fire .
No other organism possesses an organ remotely as capable of initiating a fire .
On the possession of the hand alone are we uniquely endowed to be the fire-maker .
But no matter how wonderfully crafted our hand and upright stance , they would be of no avail unless we were the right size.1 To handle fire , develop metallurgy , make tools for mining ores and hewing wood , and to carry out the innumerable manipulative tasks associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be approximately the size we are .
It is only because our size is fit for the task of fire making that man has successfully followed the long technological journey from the campfires of the ancient African Savannah to the 21st century .
And our being the right size to be a fire-maker is itself only possible because a host of basic additional physical and biological parameters are exactly as they are .
Only an organism of approximately our dimensions and android design — about 1.5 to 2 meters in height @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in manipulative tools — can readily handle fire .
An android organism the size of an ant would be far too small because the heat would kill it long before it was even several body-lengths from the flames .
Even an organism the size of a small dog one tenth the dimensions of a modern adult human , 20 centimeters tall , possessed of our android design and all our unique anatomical adaptions , would face enormous difficulties in attempting to manipulate fire .
Although the recently discovered species of diminutive humans Homo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that a species any smaller than their reported height of 3.5 feet would have difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently hot fire and building the types of kilns necessary for metallurgy .
In a fascinating article some time ago in the American Scientist entitled “ The Size of Man , ” the author W. F. Went pointed out that small organisms like “ ants or small rodents would have to keep too far away ” and “ would be unable to bring up enough wood to keep the fire going.
” 3 In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a sufficiently large mass of combustible material which happens to be just correct for use by agents or devices on a scale of human dimensions.
” 4 Manipulation of the actual fire aside , our size is also critical in carrying out the peripheral activities of building and using fire and for developing metallurgy such as chopping and carrying wood , or mining the materials from which fire can extract the useful metals .
As Went commented : “ A 3-ft man could neither cut lumber nor excavate a mine in solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his particular size ; this happened to be sufficient for exploiting fire , hunting larger animals , cutting and splitting wood , and mining minerals.
” 5 ( Emphasis added . )
Stephen Jay Gould alluded to the same point : “ Kinetic energy , in some situations , increases as length raised to the fifth power.
” 6 And he goes on to confess “ a special sympathy for the poor dwarfs who suffer under the whip of cruel Alberich in Wagner ’ s Das Rheingold .
At their diminutive size , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extracting , with mining picks , the precious minerals that Alberich demands.
” Hu Berry made the same point : “ Ants can not use tools like , for example , a hammer because an ant-sized hammer will have too little kinetic energy to drive an ant-sized nail.
” 7 Organisms significantly smaller than ourselves , even possessed of our android design , lacking the power to hew wood or mine metal ores , would not only be unable to manipulate an actual fire — they would be unable to habitually procure large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and could not mine for metal ores .
Neither fire nor metallurgy would be possible .
But would a bipedal primate of our android design but much larger than modern humans be feasible ?
Probably not .
Even as we are , we pay a price for our bipedal posture .
For one thing we suffer a number of orthopedic problems .
The design of a bipedal primate of , say , twice our height would be severely constrained by gravity and structurally problematic to say the least .
Because mass ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strength of bone and the power of muscles increases by L squared , increasing the width of limbs and the size of muscles faces diminishing returns .
J .
B. S. Haldane made this point with characteristic lucidity in his essay “ On Being the Right Size ” : Consider a giant man sixty feet high — about the height of Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim ’ s Progress of my childhood .
These monsters were not only ten times as high as Christian , but ten times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that their total weight was a thousand times his , or about eighty to ninety tons .
Unfortunately the cross-sections of their bones were only a hundred times those of Christian , so that every square inch of giant bone had to support ten times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone .
As the human thigh-bone breaks under about ten times the human weight , Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step .
This was doubtless why they were sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it lessens one ’ s respect for Christian and Jack the Giant Killer.8 Further Problems with Being Too Big In addition to the gravitational constraint , there are kinetic energy constraints on being too big , as was pointed out again by F. W. Went in the American Scientist : Consideration of kinetic energy shows us another fundamental difference between the macro-world of man and the micro-world of insects and small creatures .
The numerical values of kinetic energy actually give us a good clue as to the optimal size of man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when tripping , will have a kinetic energy upon hitting the ground 20-100 times greater than a small child who learns to walk .
This explains why it is safe for a child to learn to walk ; whereas adults occasionally break a bone when tripping , children never do .
If a man were twice as tall as he is now , his kinetic energy in falling would be so great ( 32 times more than at normal size ) that it would not be safe for him to walk upright .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could walk on two legs [ an ostrich is the only comparable species but it is about the same height as man ] .
The larger mammals can become taller , because they are more stable on their four legs.9 Steven Vogel makes the same point : “ Tripping is a potential danger to cows , horses , and the like… we run a similar risk even at a lower body mass ; the upright posture of humans gives us an unusually great height relative to our [ body ] mass.
” 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant man like Pope or Pagan on a smaller planet where gravity and kinetic forces might present less of a challenge .
Worlds significantly smaller than the Earth , where gravitational and kinetic constraints are less , tend to lose their atmospheres and precious oxygen , as discussed earlier in this series .
In short , there are compelling physical reasons why we must be approximately the size we are , to use fire and to possess sufficient strength to mine for ores and hew wood , develop metallurgy , construct metal tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a knowledge of chemistry and electricity , and explore the world .
It would appear that man , defined by Aristotle in the first line of his Metaphysics as a creature that desires understanding,12 can only accomplish an understanding and exploration of our particular world , the universe with the laws of nature as they are , in an android body of approximately the dimensions of a modern human .
Next , “ Just he Right Strength.
” • J.B.S .
Haldane , On Being the Right Size and Other Essays ( New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
• Michael J. Morwood , Radien P. Soejono , Richard G. Roberts , Thomas Sutikna , Chris S.M .
Turney , Kira Westaway , W. Jack Rink , et al.
, “ Archaeology and Age of a New Hominin from Flores in Eastern Indonesia , ” Nature 431 , no .
7012 ( October 28 , 2004 ) : 1087–1091 .
doi:10.1038/nature02956 .
• Frits Warmolt Went , “ The Size of Man , ” American Scientist 56 , no .
4 ( 1968 ) : 405 .
• Stephen Jay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Essential Stephen Jay Gould .
1st American ed .
( New York : W.W. Norton , 2007 ) , 321-322 .
• Hu Berry , “ Ants here , Flies there…Insects , ‘ Goggas ’ Everywhere !
” Flamingo ( 2006 ) , available at

Photo credit: fir0002 flagstaffotos [at] gmail.com.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
One need only recall how difficult it is to start a fire using traditional frictional methods (such as rubbing two pieces of wood together), even with the superb manipulative abilities of the human hand, to grasp the uniqueness of our ability among all organisms on Earth to make and master fire. No other organism possesses an organ remotely as capable of initiating a fire. On the possession of the hand alone are we uniquely endowed to be the fire-maker.
But no matter how wonderfully crafted our hand and upright stance, they would be of no avail unless we were the right size.1 To handle fire, develop metallurgy, make tools for mining ores and hewing wood, and to carry out the innumerable manipulative tasks associated with the development of technology, we need to be approximately the size we are. It is only because our size is fit for the task of fire making that man has successfully followed the long technological journey from the campfires of the ancient African Savannah to the 21st century. And our being the right size to be a fire-maker is itself only possible because a host of basic additional physical and biological parameters are exactly as they are.
Dimensions and Design
Only an organism of approximately our dimensions and android design — about 1.5 to 2 meters in height with mobile arms about one meter-long ending in manipulative tools — can readily handle fire. An android organism the size of an ant would be far too small because the heat would kill it long before it was even several body-lengths from the flames. Even an organism the size of a small dog one tenth the dimensions of a modern adult human, 20 centimeters tall, possessed of our android design and all our unique anatomical adaptions, would face enormous difficulties in attempting to manipulate fire. Although the recently discovered species of diminutive humans Homo floresiensis2 did use fire, it seems likely that a species any smaller than their reported height of 3.5 feet would have difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently hot fire and building the types of kilns necessary for metallurgy.
In a fascinating article some time ago in the American Scientist entitled “The Size of Man,” the author W. F. Went pointed out that small organisms like “ants or small rodents would have to keep too far away” and “would be unable to bring up enough wood to keep the fire going.”3 In sum, “fire… is only possible with a sufficiently large mass of combustible material which happens to be just correct for use by agents or devices on a scale of human dimensions.”4
Manipulation of the actual fire aside, our size is also critical in carrying out the peripheral activities of building and using fire and for developing metallurgy such as chopping and carrying wood, or mining the materials from which fire can extract the useful metals. As Went commented: “A 3-ft man could neither cut lumber nor excavate a mine in solid rock… Man has adjusted his activities to his particular size; this happened to be sufficient for exploiting fire, hunting larger animals, cutting and splitting wood, and mining minerals.”5 (Emphasis added.)
Stephen Jay Gould alluded to the same point: “Kinetic energy, in some situations, increases as length raised to the fifth power.”6 And he goes on to confess “a special sympathy for the poor dwarfs who suffer under the whip of cruel Alberich in Wagner’s Das Rheingold. At their diminutive size, they haven’t a chance of extracting, with mining picks, the precious minerals that Alberich demands.” Hu Berry made the same point: “Ants cannot use tools like, for example, a hammer because an ant-sized hammer will have too little kinetic energy to drive an ant-sized nail.”7 Organisms significantly smaller than ourselves, even possessed of our android design, lacking the power to hew wood or mine metal ores, would not only be unable to manipulate an actual fire — they would be unable to habitually procure large blocks of wood to fuel the fire and could not mine for metal ores. Neither fire nor metallurgy would be possible.
Perhaps a Giant, Then?
But would a bipedal primate of our android design but much larger than modern humans be feasible? Probably not. Even as we are, we pay a price for our bipedal posture. For one thing we suffer a number of orthopedic problems. The design of a bipedal primate of, say, twice our height would be severely constrained by gravity and structurally problematic to say the least. Because mass (and weight) increases as L cubed while the strength of bone and the power of muscles increases by L squared, increasing the width of limbs and the size of muscles faces diminishing returns. J. B. S. Haldane made this point with characteristic lucidity in his essay “On Being the Right Size”:
Consider a giant man sixty feet high — about the height of Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim’s Progress of my childhood. These monsters were not only ten times as high as Christian, but ten times as wide and ten times as thick, so that their total weight was a thousand times his, or about eighty to ninety tons. Unfortunately the cross-sections of their bones were only a hundred times those of Christian, so that every square inch of giant bone had to support ten times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks under about ten times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step. This was doubtless why they were sitting down in the picture I remember. But it lessens one’s respect for Christian and Jack the Giant Killer.8
Further Problems with Being Too Big
In addition to the gravitational constraint, there are kinetic energy constraints on being too big, as was pointed out again by F. W. Went in the American Scientist:
Consideration of kinetic energy shows us another fundamental difference between the macro-world of man and the micro-world of insects and small creatures. The numerical values of kinetic energy actually give us a good clue as to the optimal size of man. A 2 m tall man, when tripping, will have a kinetic energy upon hitting the ground 20-100 times greater than a small child who learns to walk. This explains why it is safe for a child to learn to walk; whereas adults occasionally break a bone when tripping, children never do. If a man were twice as tall as he is now, his kinetic energy in falling would be so great (32 times more than at normal size) that it would not be safe for him to walk upright. Consequently man is the tallest creature which could walk on two legs [an ostrich is the only comparable species but it is about the same height as man]. The larger mammals can become taller, because they are more stable on their four legs.9
Steven Vogel makes the same point: “Tripping is a potential danger to cows, horses, and the like… we run a similar risk even at a lower body mass; the upright posture of humans gives us an unusually great height relative to our [body] mass.”10
There is no escape by envisaging a giant man like Pope or Pagan on a smaller planet where gravity and kinetic forces might present less of a challenge. Worlds significantly smaller than the Earth, where gravitational and kinetic constraints are less, tend to lose their atmospheres and precious oxygen, as discussed earlier in this series.
In short, there are compelling physical reasons why we must be approximately the size we are, to use fire and to possess sufficient strength to mine for ores and hew wood, develop metallurgy, construct metal tools, develop a sophisticated technology, have a knowledge of chemistry and electricity, and explore the world. It would appear that man, defined by Aristotle in the first line of his Metaphysics as a creature that desires understanding,12 can only accomplish an understanding and exploration of our particular world, the universe with the laws of nature as they are, in an android body of approximately the dimensions of a modern human.
Next, “Just the Right Strength.”
Notes