First Gear Mechanism Discovered In Nature

GameboyRMH writes "A gear mechanism has been discovered [paywalled original paper here, for those with access] for the first time in nature in the nymph of the Issus, a small plant-hopping insect common in Europe. It uses the gears to synchronize the movement and power of its hind legs, forcing the legs to propel it in a straight line when jumping, which would otherwise be impossible for the insect if it had to control the timing and force of its leg muscles independently."

Comments

man is still superor...

[nblender]

Our contraptions have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and sometimes higher.

Re:man is still superor...

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, but they all look the same, just different sizes.

Re:man is still superor...

[gallondr00nk]

Our contraptions have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and sometimes higher.

In fact, man is so superior, we even have contraptions with infinite gears!

Re:man is still superor...

[gagol]

Still pale in comparison to the physical mechanism to replicate DNA, nothing impressive here.

Re:man is still superor...

[reve_etrange]

Or my favorite, the F1/F0 ATP Synthase, which is literally a proton-powered turbine which inter-converts chemical and mechanical energy with ~97% efficiency.

Re:man is still superor...

[gagol]

Cool! Thanks! Will read tonight.

Re: man is still superor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you Americans still can't get the grasp of irony.

Yeah, some men are so superior they can't even spell superior.

Re:man is still superor...

[reve_etrange]

The wiki page is slightly sparse, but links to this site and several others with more information are in the external links section. There are some really cool animations of the thing in action here, especially this one.

Re: man is still superor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,"American Exceptionalism" and their "Moral Superiority". And what pray tell, do they have to show for it? Putin telling them where to "Put-it" ROFL.

Re: man is still superor...

[Gadget_Guy]

Guess you Americans still can't get the grasp of irony.
Yeah, some men are so superior they can't even spell superior.

There is nothing ironic about this. The word superior does not imply perfection. In this example, man only needs to be better at spelling the word superior than nature is

In a contest between man and nature, man will always win any spelling bee, even if nature was represented by an actual bee.

Re:man is still superor...

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer quantum-mechanical energy conversion ;)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620142932.htm

Re: man is still superor...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the whole, "Oh shit, Syria called our bluff, our poker "Don't cross a Red Line" face sucks. Now the world knows we only have a pair of 3's, Russia has all the cards"

Re: man is still superor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was talking about perfection? Don't skew you discussion to suit your agenda.

A person stating humans to be superior, whilst misspelling the word superior, is ironic.

It really is true, you really don't get it at all do you. You must follow the Alanis Morissette school of irony.

Re:man is still superor...

[skids]

Often I've wondered whether there was an actual evolved free wheel anywhere at all in nature. I guess that marginally meets the criteria. Neat.

Re:man is still superor...

[reve_etrange]

Also: bacterial flagellum. The other crazy thing about this case is that at super high viscosity and ultra low inertia (e.g. a cell in water) you can't use regular swimming motions to move around. Turns out you have to have a motion which is not invariant under time reversal in order to actually generate thrust. The flagellum meets this criterion because the spiral / helical motion has a handedness (chirality) which is swapped under time reversal.

Re:man is still superor...

[skids]

Thanks again. Actually used for propulsion, interesting. I was expecting more of an internal use like a pulse-less pressure turbine for stealth circulation, since obviously legs work better on the macroscopic level for travel over arbitrary terrain..

Evolution is gearing up for a jump!

[solafide]

Who knows, maybe next we'll evolve gears to help us reach those things on the top shelf better...

Re:Evolution is gearing up for a jump!

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely outcome will be Gears of War.

Re:Evolution is gearing up for a jump!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, that's why we have people above 7 feet tall. Jumping is for suckers, just stand up and reach it.

Re:Evolution is gearing up for a jump!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exoskeletons are kind of import to making those hard locking gears. We're not likely to go down that path.

Beside, we can make jump machines. I loved my pogo stick as a child!

Re: Evolution is gearing up for a jump!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us have evolved to get boy/girlfriends so we no longer have to reach the top shelf, try it. ;-)

B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a gear you can't jump in a straight line is total BS. Have you never seen a cricket or grasshopper? Independent leg control is superior in every way i can think of. I can jump sideways. Horses hind legs operate out of sync and they do really good a runinning and jumping straight.

This tripe must have been written by an idiot who didn't pay attention in school who needs a government grant to pay for his ramen.

Re:B effing S

[WilliamGeorge]

I don't think you are jumping the sort of distances (relative to your size) that this insect is. The power of the jump compared to its mass is quite impressive, and apparently has special requirements. From the linked article:

" The gear teeth on the opposing hind-legs lock together like those in a car gear-box, ensuring almost complete synchronicity in leg movement - the legs always move within 30 'microseconds' of each other, with one microsecond equal to a millionth of a second.

This is critical for the powerful jumps that are this insect's primary mode of transport, as even minuscule discrepancies in synchronization between the velocities of its legs at the point of propulsion would result in "yaw rotation" - causing the Issus to spin hopelessly out of control."

Re: B effing S

[tysonedwards]

The Synopsis was a little lacking in detail. Namely, the gear configuration for the legs on this adolescent insect allowed it to jump faster and further than it would normally be able to do safely. Through use of the gear configuration, it allowed the adolescent insect to develop it's nervous system to adapt to acceleration to 400g while it's muscular structure and carapace developed, at which point the years are shed. Basically, these are training wheels, not that they are inherently better. What is interesting is that the gear design is quite different than what we humans have created, and allows for highly effective forward momentum with minimal energy expenditure at the expense of reverse.

Re:B effing S

[phantomfive]

Wow, congratulations, you proved all etymologists wrong with three seconds of thought.

Or maybe there's something special about this insect that gives it an extra need for stability. (Hint, there is, read the article. What, didn't your private school teach you to read?)

Re:B effing S

[WilliamGeorge]

Also, I love that people are being amazed at how evolution resulted in such intricate mechanisms. If you found a car on another planet, where humans had never been, would you assume it evolved there? Or would you think someone created it? To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.

Re:B effing S

[GameboyRMH]

You're joking right? I could see quite easily how a gear mechanism could have evolved from a simple pair of spurs.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh please.

Re:B effing S

[AK Marc]

Have you never seen a cricket or grasshopper?

Yes. They have stabilizers. This little bug doesn't, thus needs more accurate jumping.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't modded down because someone doesn't agree. It's modded down because you'd have to be fucking stupid to believe it. The "level of detail" in this pair of insect legs is on a completely different level of mechanization from finding a car on another planet. You've shoved your head so far up your assumption that there's a God that you've taken two very different things and perceived them as equivalent in a feeble attempt to "prove" it.

Re:B effing S

[GameboyRMH]

Some open minds that folks have here...

Not open enough for our brains to fall out.

Re:B effing S

[Rockoon]

..and here is a video of the gears in action.

Re:B effing S

[Antipater]

Wow, congratulations, you proved all etymologists wrong with three seconds of thought.

Etymologists?

Re:B effing S

[WilliamGeorge]

Then take the creature as a whole. Even such a tiny insect is absolutely as complex as a car! For that matter, every *cell* in that insect is as complex as a car - at least the mechanical components (excepting for the point of this discussion the onboard electronics / computer systems).

Oh, and at least I have the decency to avoid name calling and use of expletives... and in fact, to use my real name on comments which may be unpopular. I'm not afraid of what I believe, and I know that it is extremely unpopular on sites like this - but the truth will win out in the end (even if it is long after we are both dead).

Re:B effing S

[QilessQi]

To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.

I suspect that Creationists would say the same thing about any complex biological structure. Interlocking gears are interesting because human beings manufacture similar structures, but there's nothing about them that's more miraculous than, say, a retina.

And if biologists can find fossils with more-primitive gear structures as we go back in time -- fewer teeth, less-effective interlocking, etc. -- that would actually support evolution even more, by demonstrating that it is able to produce interesting machines by gradual (and occasionally stark) mutation.

Of course, I doubt that most Creationists can ever be swayed from their opinions, no matter what scientific evidence is presented, because evidence for evolution in the fossil record is already overwhelming and yet there are still Creationists. That's the power of religion.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, somebody using this to prove intelligent design, I came here to make exact same argument (with a large sarcasm tag attached to it)
While this is pretty amazing, it is not the first or second thing in nature that is similar to designs created by humans. Some designs are just naturally more efficient; sometimes we copy nature and other times we come up with them independently (like this one). Examples: a circle, shortest route between two points, internal structure of a crane, etc.

Intricate designs like this still do not prove existence of an invisible and unobseravle supreme being. Humans used that to explain spooky natural phenomena they observed, but now that most of those are kind of explained, we no longer need to believe in fairy tale creatures. I, for one, still believe in Aliens, but at least there is some probablility of intelligent life evolving somewhere -- it is the complete lack of merit behind religion that turned me off.

Re:B effing S

[AK Marc]

If you found a car on another planet, where humans had never been, would you assume it evolved there?

If the materials were unrelated to any other naturally occurring material, as is a regular car (steel is not naturally occurring, nor is plastic or paint), then it would seem to be manufactured, not evolved. If you see a burn mark in a piece of toast that looks like Jesus, do you assume God put it there, or that in millions of pieces of toast cooked per day, some burns will bear some resemblance to other objects?

Re:B effing S

[gagol]

DO NOT feed the troll. (rule #1 of Internet)

Re:B effing S

[gagol]

Obvious attempt to insert "creationism" THEORY on scientific crowd. Did you really expect another outcome? If so, please post your reply on a christian fundamentalist website, you will be pleased as simple minde people believe anything even remotely conected to their beliefs.

Re:B effing S

[Sardaukar86]

To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.

To me, this level of idiotic thinking is strong evidence of mental incompetence.

Can't explain something in under ten seconds? Well then, God must have done it.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Then take the creature as a whole. Even such a tiny insect is absolutely as complex as a car! For that matter, every *cell* in that insect is as complex as a car - at least the mechanical components (excepting for the point of this discussion the onboard electronics / computer systems).

Oh, and at least I have the decency to avoid name calling and use of expletives... and in fact, to use my real name on comments which may be unpopular. I'm not afraid of what I believe, and I know that it is extremely unpopular on sites like this - but the truth will win out in the end (even if it is long after we are both dead).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

If we are of divinely micromanaged origin, the divine is a slacker who takes horrible shortcuts. What are tonsils for? The Appendix? The tail we have in the womb? These are rhetorical questions. Real scientists, who rely on empirical evidence to support theory, vs. theoretical evidence to support faith, understand that following:

1) The world is flat is a false statement.
2) The world is a sphere flat is a false statement.
But the people who don't understand that #2 is LESS wrong than #1 are willful idiots.

If ylur want to believe that there is a god that kicked off the Big Bang and let it go from there, that's fine. But as soon as "He" interferes in the empirically measurable world, there goes free will and self-determination. Anyone who goes to hell is damned by their creator with no hope of redemption, as they wer created wrong. I say F that creator myth.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not strong evidence for creation in any way. To attribute this kind of detail to intentional creation doesn't explain anything, all it does is open up even more questions. Hence: Troll.

Re:B effing S

[chuckugly]

I thank the sysop for allowing all you bots to run with me in my dedicated simulation.

Re:B effing S

[e_armadillo]

Or is it like the Babel fish in HHG? Proof of the opposite?

Quote:
                The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
                "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments,
                you don't. QED."
                "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
End Quote

Re:B effing S

[Kahlandad]

You are making the assertion that these gear-like structures are proof of a creator, so how do you differentiate between living structures that are created and living structures that evolved? These particular structures are proof? How so? How do you define complexity and what order of complexity is the threshold for what could have evolved and what you assert must have been created?

In order for this to be accepted as proof by anyone other than yourself and your cult, you need to provide detail and methodology that can be used to complete testable research. Until then, it's nothing more than your assertion that somehow you are capable of looking at morphological structures and making the determination as to what had to be created by the finger of god and what is "too simple" to have required divine intervention.

Again, how do you tell the difference between a living structure that was designed and one that evolved?

Re:B effing S

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What you are proposing is inherintly anti science. Instead of trying to figurout why things the way they are, you would have us just accept that they are. Not only is it creationism bad science, but also lazy theology.

Re:B effing S

[Jarik C-Bol]

A horse is airborne for maybe 1 or two lengths of its body at most. This bug can jump hundreds of times its own body length. infinitesimal errors in the timing of one leg or the other (i.e., not in perfect sync) has a much more drastic effect over those distances. (a millisecond off one way or the other means the difference between landing on target, and landing several inches or feet off target.)

Re:B effing S

[minstrelmike]

To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.

That's because it's easy to imagine a Creator just appearing magically all at once but having life evolve itself over billions of years is just too weird.
I'm serious. That's really the belief.
A creator can self-evolve or self-appear, but nothing less is allowed to in their limited little pantheon of belief.

Of course, they also have to ignore the creation of death, disease, famine and Republicans.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

May be evidence for creation, but it's not anywhere near enough to be satisfactory. And then, let's imagine we do reach a 3 sigma level of confidence, we still don't know who did it. That would require further proof - a book writen for political reasons (regardless of which one you have in mind) is not proof. Hell, even a 1 sigma level of confidence in creation would get everybody here scratching their heads and jumping with joy for science!

Re:B effing S

[ChrisMaple]

Tonsils are part of the immune system. The function of the appendix is unknown, but informed speculation includes immune system and an obsolescent part of the digestive system once effective in high-foliage diets.

Re:B effing S

[Kaenneth]

I'm confused, Are you suggesting that gods create cars, or that aliens create insects?

Or were you just stretching for a car analogy?

Re:B effing S

[MightyYar]

Let's take your car analogy and run with it. If I found a car on a planet full of self-replicating creatures that shared many features of the car, and even found very simple car components all over the place, as well as a underground record showing many iterations of creatures that eventually led to the car... then yeah, I would assume it evolved there.

Re:B effing S

[WilliamGeorge]

On the contrary! I greatly applaud scientific efforts to understand how things work. It helps us advance our knowledge of God's creation, and aids us in all manner of activities in life: health care, transportation, food production, etc. I also find it fascinating when discoveries are made that change the way we understand the world, and I am constantly amazed at the complexity of things we take for granted in day to day life because we cannot see them in detail easily (DNA replication, atomic interactions, etc).

One of the things I am most fascinated by is the double-slit experiment, and I look forward to someday finding out what is going on there - and so research into that, both practical and theoretical, is of great value.

The difference between my approach and that of the naturalistic scientific community is that my worldview does not require our universe to be a closed system. In a completely closed system, with no interaction from outside (past, present, or future) things we find in nature have to be interpreted in certain ways. I can see those same findings and interpret them in a way that meshes science with the activity of God - both in His initial creation of our universe, and in select interactions since then... and I find that a lot of things in life make a lot more sense with that approach. I understand that a lot of people (likely most, in a forum like Slashdot) would disagree - and I won't insult them for it. I would appreciate the same courtesy from others. [please note that I am not saying the poster above me was insulting in any way, but others in this discussion have been]

Re: B effing S

[FuzzMaster]

Spouting unscientific nonsense in a crowd of nerds is, by definition, trolling.

Re:B effing S

[Sarten-X]

In the interest of pedantic drivel, please define "naturally occurring".

Steel, paint, and plastic are all natural if you consider humans to be an agent for natural processes. As much as protein synthesis is a natural process governed my organelles, why not the synthesis of polymers governed by animals? Is there some moment where humans are just barely smart enough that the results of their chemical processes are unnatural?

As for the original scenario, if we were to find a car on another planet, a thorough analysis must be done to determine the exact details of the situation, such as whether it's actually a car from Earth, or just something similar. Then we must check the neighboring planets for similar evidence of perhaps a failed civilization. We must also consider how such an artifact could have arrived at its resting place if it were to arrive there from somewhere else. Finally, if there is still no explanation that fits our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, we must accept that the car was placed there by means of magic.

By "magic", of course, I mean "sufficiently advanced technology", which may very well be the thoughts of a being capable of massive and precise spacetime manipulation through an as-yet-unknown means. I'm inclined to doubt it, though.

Re:B effing S

[turbidostato]

"I can see those same findings and interpret them in a way that meshes science with the activity of God"

What do you think about Mr Occam?

Re:B effing S

[turbidostato]

"I find that a lot of things in life make a lot more sense with that approach."

That might make for a good philosopher but has little to do with science.

Are your conjetures testable?

Re:B effing S

[Patent Lover]

Yep. Too bad it took a shitload of scientists to find the "creation".

Re:B effing S

[mrprogrammerman]

It's interesting that everyone is looking at the same evidence in nature but coming to different conclusions. Sometimes you need to ask yourself what evidence would you need for the existence of a Creator? Is there any possible evidence that could provide for the existence of a Creator?

What if a theoretical Creator wrote a letter to you saying what his name was (Psalms 83:18) and told you he was responsible for creating everything (Genesis 1:1). How about if he gave an explanation for things like why we suffer (Genesis 3:6), he explained how he was fixing the problem through his kingdom (Mathew 24:14), and that his purpose is for a future without suffering (Revelation 21:3-4). What if he made it clear he was the author of that message by stating it (2 Timothy 3:16) and then showed the ability to predict the future by showing the rise of world powers followed by his kingdom (Daniel 2:44). Certainly if someone made those claims I think it would at least be worth investigating.

According to that Creator it's possible to get more personal evidence. He claims to hear prayers (Psalms 65:2). He will answer prayers that are in harmony with his will (1 John 5:14-15). It's his will that everyone learns the truth about him (1 Timothy 2:4). Putting those ideas together, my theory is that if you pray to him he will provide the evidence and knowledge you need.

Re:B effing S

[turbidostato]

"a millisecond off one way or the other means the difference between landing on target, and landing several inches or feet off target."

Do you really think they aim for a target when they jump?

Funny.

Re:B effing S

[AK Marc]

Steel, paint, and plastic are all natural if you consider humans to be an agent for natural processes

With that definition, there can exist nothing not-natural. As the word has a definition other than "everything" then manufacture by humans is not natural. Most would take "natural" and "manufactured" to be antonyms, but even if you don't, I can't see any reasonable argument for them being synonyms.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting your full real name on your idiotic lunacy only shows how idiotic and lunatic you are.

And arguing that your position is correct because you are a better person who doesn't use expletives is both a logical fallacy, and prideful Pharisaical phoniness that anyone who cared about the teachings of Jesus would find distasteful. Hell, I find it distasteful, and I only consider Jesus a wise man; an actual Christian would be disgusted. The petty martyrdom you're trying to put on, to please your sadistic image of God, is also a bit perverse. Enjoy Hell.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is there any possible evidence that could provide for the existence of a Creator?"

Certainly. But that evidence doesn't consist of a bunch of mutually contradictory writings by a bunch of superstitious mystics.

"my theory is that if you pray to him he will provide the evidence and knowledge you need"

Sorry, but that's not a theory; it's a hypothesis. And it's been tested. I was raised as a devout Christian, and worshipped and prayed just as you say. And all I got was silence. No answers. And the only wisdom I got was that we have to find the answers ourselves. Maybe you heard voices, maybe you think you received answers. I did not. Even as much as I wanted to. So your hypothesis has been tested (by me and countless others), and I couldn't duplicate the results you predicted. So your hypothesis has been disproven, and you have no theory at all. Just a bunch of random speculation by people who lacked the intellectual tools to seek out evidence themselves.

Re: B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should put it in motorcycles.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

I will chime in before you got downmodded into oblivion...

Sometimes you need to ask yourself what evidence would you need for the existence of a Creator? Is there any possible evidence that could provide for the existence of a Creator?

Try r/Creator/Santa Claus/, does it still make sense?

I would need pretty convincing evidence. Something I can touch or observe, something that EXISTS. And before you claim that Creator is a creature in a higher state of being and cannot be observed... so is Santa!

What if a theoretical Creator wrote a letter to you saying what his name was

1. Look for potential prankster

2. If prankster not found, just assume he exists (the prankster, that is)

(Psalms 83:18) (Genesis 3:6), (Mathew 24:14), (Revelation 21:3-4) (2 Timothy 3:16) (Daniel 2:44)

I assume they are source links to works written by prophets. Prophets are people who claimed they know everything, without backing anything up with evidence. Their claims have never been tested or reproduced. Self-proclaimed prophets are dime a dozen these days, sorry.

Certainly if someone made those claims I think it would at least be worth investigating.

You mean nobody bothered to investigate? If they have, did they reproduce/prove anything?

...It's his will that everyone learns the truth about him

This is the part that I don't get. If Creator is one, and there is some "truth about him", why are there many different religions each of which claims to know the truth, but paint the truth differently every time? Is there more than one truth or do you claim that your religion is the only right one?

Re:B effing S

[camperdave]

As I understand it, the appendix is also part of the immune system. It is a storehouse for intestinal flora: bacteria that aid in digestion. If you get a diahretic disease that flushes out your colon, your digestive flora are repopulated from the appendix.

Re:B effing S

[camperdave]

William of Ockham was an English Franciscan friar who believed "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover". In other words, scientific reasoning will never tell you anything about God or spiritual matters.

Re:B effing S

[wftaylor]

The appendix (in its literal backwater) has been seen to miss some of the flora changes that happen on some big diarrhea events and it is assumed by some to be the source of an ability to return to "some approximation" of the previous status quo.

Re:B effing S

[turbidostato]

"In other words, scientific reasoning will never tell you anything about God or spiritual matters."

Which is estrictly true and proves you no less a troll than the person I answered to.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite.
You have to believe in the creation of Life. Death, disease etc are the absence of life or the perversion thereof, the direct consequence of life being removed or modified against what it was designed to be. I suppose the Republicans also confirm this....

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno.
Even granted that cycloidal vs involute (they look very cycloidal) is a matter of fashion (modern machine tools are more suited for cutting involute profiles) more than inherent engineering superiority, any first year mech. eng. student submitting that would be told to go away and consider the effect of gears meeting at that angle without bevelling or other support. The effect, in fact, is pointed out in the article - this is only seen in juveniles because it doesn't matter when (not if) the gear teeth strip. Adults, who can't afford to lose the gears, don't have them.

So if there is a Creator, he or she is an incompetent dilettante.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... if natural selection is to be true, then gear or no gear would make a tremendous difference to the viability of the species. Or at least its efficiency. I mean, flies appear to fly randomly without an aim, and they're not extinct, but imagine if they could actually fly in a straight line, to whatever they've sensed.

Re:B effing S

[camperdave]

Don't blame me if you don't like Friar Ockham's ideas.

Re:B effing S

[WillAdams]

Even taking the creature as a whole, the nature of God, that His existence can't be proven and requires faith, requires that all of creation be ordered in such a way that it could have evolved without an active Creator --- If you can prove that something could only be made through ``intelligent design'' then there's no room for faith.

Let's leave religion in church and Sunday School where it belongs, okay?

Re:B effing S

[Ogive17]

If that is what you truely believe, what the God fuckup during your creation?

Re:B effing S

[smooth wombat]

this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.

So you're saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created this highly complex system to move this critter rather than using the much simpler method of grasshoppers and crickets.

I guess that makes sense when you consider it had to impregnate someone else's wife (breaking one of its own commandments) to have its child which it then let be executed to fix the mistakes it made when it created man.

Yeah, I can see how you would believe this mechanism was created by such a being.

Re:B effing S

[wonkey_monkey]

The difference between my approach and that of the naturalistic scientific community is that my worldview does not require our universe to be a closed system.

Science doesn't require anything of anything. It certainly doesn't require the universe to be a closed system. There's plenty of active scientific research and theory going on around the subject. Is our universe just an inflated patch of another universe? Are we living on the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional brane? And so on.

and I find that a lot of things in life make a lot more sense with that approach.

A lot of things make a lot more sense for people when they can just throw up their arms and say "God did it!" It doesn't actually get you anywhere, though. A lot of science is about saying "this doesn't make sense - why not?"

Re:B effing S

[wonkey_monkey]

My feeling is that a lot people with creationist leanings just don't understand quite how long a billion years actually is.

Re:B effing S

[skids]

With that definition, there can exist nothing not-natural.

You don't have to go quite that far to render the term "natural" completely meaningless. You can just look at many of the objects connotated as "natural" and find that among them are often found poisons, carcinogens, disruptive species, and diseases,

Which is pretty much why "natural" is a useless word these days, and becoming moreso annually. Terms such as "bio-friendly" with attached meanings of actual consequence are starting to gain traction. "Natural" will eventually become a word used solely by people who want to express that they do not understand how something is made or how it works.

Re:B effing S

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to assume you're wilfully ignorant here, and not deliberately and knowingly bearing false witness by repeating long-debunked arguments. Because, you know, wilful ignorance SHOULD be a sin, but it didn't make it into the commandments.

Re:B effing S

[X0563511]

but it's impossible for you to actually show it happening

That's because it takes orders of magnitude than a human being lives, dumbass! Would you deny continental drift because you can't see it happening? Grass grows too slowly to be seen by the naked eye, so while we're at it you can deny that grass grows, too.

Re:B effing S

[Sarten-X]

With that definition, there can exist nothing not-natural.

Well, yes. There can of course be supernatural things, but I haven't seen any of those those myself...

It is important to denote the universe of discourse. In the case of finding a car on a planet, literally the entire physical universe could hold a "natural" reason for the car's presence. On the other hand, if we consider only the planet itself to be the realm of possibility, finding an "unnatural" object means it is obviously supernatural.

From the perspective of a hypothetical Martian having Neanderthal-level technology, our rovers are probably supernatural. These things fell from the sky, act on their own, consume no food, and require no sleep. They are alien, but the concept of extraterrestrial civilizations doesn't exist. Since they don't fit within the Martians' accustomed universe of discourse, they cannot be understood as "natural", and require baseless speculation for their origin. That speculation, given a few thousand years of favoritism, becomes religion.

Re:B effing S

[__aarzwb9394]

You can't possibly be unaware of the response to such "spontaneous arrangement of molecules is too unlikely" statements.

But just in case:

The complexity did not arise spontaneously. Non creationists suggest that complexity that improved inclusive fitness was retained and thus preferentially found in the pool of offspring. So are all other characteristics that improve survival .

Transformers

[AmiMoJo]

One of the original origin stories for the Transformers was that they evolved from naturally occurring pulleys and gears. IIRC it was used in the comics, until they retconned it.

picture

[phantomfive]

If you look at the picture of the thing, it's pretty amazing. Each gear strip is 400 micrometers long.

Re:picture

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed. 10 to 12 gears, with a 1:1 gear ratio.

The cool part?

"Unlike man-made gears, each gear tooth is asymmetrical and curved towards the point where the cogs interlock - as man-made gears need a symmetric shape to work in both rotational directions, whereas the Issus gears are only powering one way to launch the animal forward."

Re:picture

[prescientmemories]

If you look really carefully, you can see a stamp on the gear that says 'Made in China'

Re:picture

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlike man-made gears, each gear tooth is asymmetrical and curved towards the point where the cogs interlock - as man-made gears need a symmetric shape to work in both rotational directions, whereas the Issus gears are only powering one way to launch the animal forward."

Which is what some journalist wrote and is very inaccurate. Here's what was actually written.

Each gear tooth had a curved fillet at its base (Fig. 1E), a feature which, in man-made gears, reduces the likelihood of shearing. In Issus, however, the teeth were asymmetric (Fig. 1, D to F), whereas those of man-made gears often have a symmetric shape called an involute designed to work in both rotational directions (5).

Emphasis is mine. Note, gears like these are man-made, just not the most common type.

Science rules! ... or not?

[paavo512]

Extra credit for the article to put 'microseconds' in quotes! And then explain what it means. Whoa, so we can introduce entire generations in science who have not mastered difficult concepts like 'zero' before (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-02-27/).

Re:Science rules! ... or not?

[gmuslera]

Probably the quotes were meant for the fans of intelligent design that went in flocks to read the article.

Re:Science rules! ... or not?

[gagol]

Or in a backward country that consider the metric system as necessary to teach...

Re:Science rules! ... or not?

[gagol]

posted too quickly, need a "don't" after "that". TY and sorry.

Re:Science rules! ... or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the quotes were mainly to find other things tagged with microseconds, but yeah, the explanation saddened me.

Phys.org got filled with so many morons over the years.
Seriously, the comment sections read like a youtube videos comments that mentions "free" and "power" in the title.
ALL ABOUT THE OVER-UNITY DESPITE IT BEING A SOLAR PANEL OR WIND GENERATOR... or something else.
God, where did all these over-unity people come from, why do they exist, but more importantly, why do they have to flock to good sites and channels and ruin them?

I'm more saddened at the lack of any scientific knowledge in average people though.
Science isn't any harder to remember than words, the teachers are the ones that ruin it for so many though.
Monotonous education methods do not work and never will work, especially when there is no forcing it in with painful punishments for not accepting it like there used to be decades back with people getting slapped with canes and the like.
Ever since that stopped, everything went to shit. All that stuff in the 60s isn't even a spit of rain compared to now.
Lack of discipline, respect and care for anything. The little shits deserve a beating for stepping out of line.
Yeah, you like angry birds, eh, you like them? Here is a angry eagle that hasn't been fed much and taught to attack anything that moves, lesson begins, see you in 50 minutes class.

Well, that got dark. Time to go play some happy games.

Zoolander

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the picture of the thing, it's pretty amazing. Each gear strip is 400 micrometers long.

What is this? A car for ants?

Full text as PDF

[pdfbuddy]

You can read the paper's full text here: http://freepdfhosting.com/292b7f1c8f.pdf Some highlights: On page 2, there are some great images of the gears in action. Do check them out! Your friend, pdfbuddy.

Re:Full text as PDF

[GameboyRMH]

Thanks pdfbuddy!

Gears?

[Anachragnome]

Gears?

Looking at the photo of an Issus on the Phys.org link, I'm more interested in the jet propulsion the little bugger appears to be using.

Re:Bullshit!

[GameboyRMH]

I thought about quoting the relevant part of TFA on this in the summary, but didn't....what a mistake.

Anyway you can read it to find out why you're wrong in the case of this insect.

First, really? Whap happended to flagellum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrap up here: http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/irreducible-complexity/

Re:First, really? Whap happended to flagellum?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many different flagella, flagella are not motors except by analogy, and irreducible complexity was first predicted to be a possible outcome of evolution way back in 1918.

photoshop plz

[j_l_larson]

Somebody photoshop a top hat, goggles and pocketwatch for the first steampunk insect! http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/056/820/i02/planthopper-insect-leg-gears.jpg?1379008166

Boring...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not impressive. Call me when you find an insect that has evolved a clutch.

Insect Ex Machina

[Maintenance Goof]

Since some shrimp use cavitation to attack, and some bugs use timing gears to jump, seems like a good idea to watch little things more closely. We might just see something we missed.

Re:Insect Ex Machina

[Hamsterdan]

Which brings us to this

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp

Re:Insect Ex Machina

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Japanese cuisine, the mantis shrimp is eaten boiled as a sushi topping, and occasionally, raw as sashimi; and is called shako ()."

As fantastic as the technological advances of the mantis shrimp sounds, it still doesn't prevent it from reaching it's ultimate fate.

System only works for juveniles.

[mindwanderer]

"It's not yet known why the Issus loses its hind-leg gears on reaching adulthood"

Issus wives can really grind your gears.

Painful

[Overzeetop]

Microseconds has to be in single quotes, and defined in the same sentence it is used. That's ignoring that fact that it is also, apparently, a tag. *sigh*

If we keep looking...

[Tablizer]

Next up: a bug that has Linux. (Not just Linux that has bugs)

Re:If we keep looking...

[Anonymous Coward]

In FOSSoviet Russia bugs have linux...

Re:Bullshit!

[Tablizer]

The advantage of gears over nerve signals is that neural-toxins from poison enemies wouldn't be able to mess up the leg timing.

Moderators, please mod GP up

[QilessQi]

William George's post should not have been modded "Troll". I also disagree with his point (and I said as much in my own reply), but it's a plausible position to take if you're a Creationist. Posting unpopular or even unscientific opinions is not necessarily trolling.

Re:Moderators, please mod GP up

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting unpopular or even unscientific opinions is not necessarily trolling.

Some unscientific opinions cannot be distinguished from trolling.

Re:Moderators, please mod GP up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plausible" being the key word there. It describes something as believable on the surface, but which is often deceptive, fallacious, or false.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible

1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious

Creationism is not science. By definition. So if you want to bring it up in a discussion about a scientific finding, you have to be careful about how you do so. I've participated in several such mature discussions, so I know it can be done. But this doesn't cut it. WilliamGeorge was not just arrogant and insulting, he couldn't even come up with anything original to say, just the same tired fallacies and tropes. That is well deserving of being modded Troll.

Re:Moderators, please mod GP up

[cellocgw]

William George's post should not have been modded "Troll". I also disagree with his point (and I said as much in my own reply), but it's a plausible position to take if you're a Creationist. Posting unpopular or even unscientific opinions is not necessarily trolling.

No, you are wrong on all counts. His position is not plausible. "plausible" has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "sounds reasonable to me regardless of reality." Our objection to his post is not that it's unpopular -- heck, it's wildly popular south of the Mason-Dixon line -- but that it's horseshit. People who post horseshit in a science/technology website are either completely clueless or deliberately trolling.

I hope that bug has a good lawyer

[bitt3n]

Apple already patented "a method of locomotion involving jumpy-springy gear-type thingamajigs or whatnot" and if the bug doesn't have a sizable patent portfolio for negotiating purposes, it's going to have to start walking around like everyone else. Also, the corners on that carapace are looking suspiciously rounded.

Outboard Motors in Bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already been known that bacteria have an "outboard motor":

https://preachrr.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/flagellar_motor.jpg

https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/bacteria-with-outboard-motors/

Re:Outboard Motors in Bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to know the finer points of theology, I'll ask a member of the clergy. If I want to know the finer points of biology, I'll ask a biologist.

Re: Outboard Motors in Bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

are you suggesting disciplines never cross? philosophy has nothing to do with math, etc. That's a tired result of the influence of logical positivism.

Re: Outboard Motors in Bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all--nobody knows better than a scientist how much disciplines cross. I've worked in half a dozen different departments over my career from physics to veterinary medicine! It's just that we live in a society of experts. I'm sure there are dentists who can do oil changes just like there are mechanics that can pull teeth, but I didn't swap my appointments this week. Beats me why you even bring up logical positivism.

What?

[Alter_3d]

No car analogy?

Re:Bullshit!

[minstrelmike]

Some of these research articles of late seem to have no respect for the basics of nature that the layman seems to have been taking for granted since the beginning.

If you're going to whine about an article, at least read it. The gears help it react faster than any sort of nerve impulse could.
And they also suggest at the end that the reason larva have gears but not adults is because larva molt.
They theorize that adults do not have gears because any sort of fracture is permanent and fractures seem likely over a period of sustained use.

Nature is the best innovator over time, bar none.

[Banichi]

There exists a Weevil with a screw as a leg joint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonopterus_oblongus

Nature is absolutely awesome.

what I want to know is how do paramecium

[mark_reh]

synchronize their cilia? I have watched them under stroboscopic illumination and there are wave-like patterns in the motion, similar to what you see when a centipede runs across the floor. Paramecia are single celled and have no nerves, no muscles. How do they synchronize the motion of those hundreds (or thousands) of cilia? Is it simply cascading chemical reactions?

Re:what I want to know is how do paramecium

[Hillgiant]

Is it simply cascading chemical reactions?

In a first approximation, all of biology is a series of cascading chemical reactions. Why should cilia be any different?

Trying to determine timezone of /.

[Anonymous Coward]

What time is it?

Re:Nature is the best innovator over time, bar non

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also surprised nobody mentioned insects like leaf cutter ants that have a cogged gearing interface in their mandibles that help with a rolling cutting motion or some other invertibrates like crabs that have it in rasping mouthparts. Apparently being able to use mechanical advantage is handy no matter what size you are, so evolution should favor it provided a chance mutation makes it available.

Dear lord

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought I had too much ass hair...

it's the bombardier beetle all over again

[circletimessquare]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

"how can it evolve? it will blow up if it doesn't get it just right!"

we should all realize that, unfortunately, creationists will immediately alight upon these gears as "intelligent design" and disproof of evolution

"how can it evolve? if the gears don't mesh, it doesn't move!"

you can't argue with the dull and intellectually dishonest

Re:it's the bombardier beetle all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about dull zombies. That would be great.

Wheels and bionics

[Anonymous Coward]

I always heard that wheels are the only true mechanical human invention, all else is "copied" from nature, the science of bionics.
Those gears are close enough to wheels, I guess nature covers them after all.