Slashdot Mirror
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."
Our contraptions have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and sometimes higher.
Who knows, maybe next we'll evolve gears to help us reach those things on the top shelf better...
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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."
William George
If you look at the picture of the thing, it's pretty amazing. Each gear strip is 400 micrometers long.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Thirty four characters live here.
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?)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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/).
You're joking right? I could see quite easily how a gear mechanism could have evolved from a simple pair of spurs.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
Have you never seen a cricket or grasshopper?
Yes. They have stabilizers. This little bug doesn't, thus needs more accurate jumping.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Some open minds that folks have here...
Not open enough for our brains to fall out.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
..and here is a video of the gears in action.
"His name was James Damore."
Wow, congratulations, you proved all etymologists wrong with three seconds of thought.
Etymologists?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
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).
William George
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.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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
That's not impressive. Call me when you find an insect that has evolved a clutch.
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.
DO NOT feed the troll. (rule #1 of Internet)
Tomorrow is another day...
"It's not yet known why the Issus loses its hind-leg gears on reaching adulthood"
Issus wives can really grind your gears.
:wq
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*
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Next up: a bug that has Linux. (Not just Linux that has bugs)
Table-ized A.I.
The advantage of gears over nerve signals is that neural-toxins from poison enemies wouldn't be able to mess up the leg timing.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
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.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
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.
I thank the sysop for allowing all you bots to run with me in my dedicated simulation.
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
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?
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.)
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
No car analogy?
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.
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.
There exists a Weevil with a screw as a leg joint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonopterus_oblongus
Nature is absolutely awesome.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm confused, Are you suggesting that gods create cars, or that aliens create insects?
Or were you just stretching for a car analogy?
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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]
William George
Spouting unscientific nonsense in a crowd of nerds is, by definition, trolling.
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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?
"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?
"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?
Yep. Too bad it took a shitload of scientists to find the "creation".
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.
"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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"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.
Don't blame me if you don't like Friar Ockham's ideas.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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?
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
If that is what you truely believe, what the God fuckup during your creation?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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?"
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
My feeling is that a lot people with creationist leanings just don't understand quite how long a billion years actually is.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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 .