Mankind has frequently, with varying degrees of success, attempted to mimic structures found in nature with the goal of adapting the function of the structure into technology. Take, for example, early flying machines. Pictured here is Gustave Whitehead’s Albatross glider (circa 1905):
The first thing you notice about this contraption is how very bird-like it is. A significantly earlier example is this conceptual drawing of a flying machine done by Leonardo Da Vinci (circa 1505):
Again, the wings of the machine are distinctly avian (or perhaps bat-like) in design.
It isn’t surprising that humans would take cues from the functional successes that can be observed in nature (biomimicry). In a future post, this will be explored further. For now, I mention it just to set the stage for the theme of this one.
FACT: As research progresses, scientists are discovering micro-scale biological systems that are analogous to man-made mechanisms. Rather than man copying nature, these are cases of man developing a mechanical concept only to find out, much later, that the same concept already existed in biological form.
A beautiful example of this was very recently published in the journal Science (paper). It has been discovered that a certain species of plant-hopping insect–Issus coleoptratus–has ratcheting gears that serve to synchronize the motion of its legs when it springs from leaf to leaf. The gears move at a rate of 50,000 teeth per second! This is the first time operating gears have been observed in a living creature. Here’s an electron micrograph image of the gears:
Here’s a great video that shows the gears in action.
Isn’t it fascinating that humans, while unaware of this natural gear mechanism, independently invented precisely the same concept?
Another instance of this…coincidence…is the screw-and-nut system found in the leg joint of the Papuan weevil, Trigonopterus oblongus. In a 2011 paper published in Science, researchers described the leg-joint socket as having a well-defined inner spiral thread (like those inside a screw nut) that corresponds perfectly to an external spiral thread (like those on a screw) on the leg. Here’s an image of the weevil leg joint mechanism along with its man-made counterpart:
Yet another example is the bacterial flagellar motor. Some bacteria propel themselves through watery environments using a tail-like structure called a flagellum. The flagellum is part of a biological system astoundingly similar to the rotary motors commonly used to power boats through the water. Here’s a diagram that shows the flagellar assembly in a bit of detail:
Click HERE to see a 2-minute video describing the amazing capabilities of this microscopic motor.
The important point here is that man-made rotary motors came along way before this organic mechanism was ever elucidated.
So What?
The fact that there is this pattern of humans unconsciously copying functional structures from nature calls for an explanation. Please note that I am not arguing from analogy (though I think those types of arguments have merit, and they will be discussed in the future post). What I would like to argue here is that it isn’t reasonable to expect blind processes and intelligent agents to independently produce analogous mechanisms. Furthermore, if there is a designer of life, and if mankind is made in the image of that designer (having rationality and moral awareness), then it is completely reasonable to expect that human beings would repeatedly, as the famous scientist Johannes Kepler phrased it, “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
Think about it. What would be the chances of multiple human inventions unknowingly copying biology if the latter is merely the result of blind processes? We can’t assign a mathematical probability to it, but intuition tells us that the chances would be rather low. After all, we’re comparing organic mechanisms that aid living organisms in survival and reproduction with human mechanical engineering. Why should we have multiple strong analogies between the two categories by sheer happenstance? Why would human rationality, with its ability to design things in a goal-directed manner, repeatedly hit upon the same mechanisms as an [allegedly] undirected process? In other words, given that nature supposedly “creates” blindly, with no goal in sight, and engineers use systematic, purposeful planning whenever they create, it is beyond astonishing to see identical results from completely different processes.
The fact that rational man has unconsciously duplicated several biological systems in his engineering creativity is, to me, a compelling reason to believe that there must also be a rational mind behind nature. It is unreasonable, in my view, to suppose that non-rational processes (unguided evolution**) and rational processes would repeatedly and independently arrive at such remarkably similar mechanisms. Furthermore, if our rationality is modeled after the Creator’s, it is reasonable to expect that we would sometimes mirror his marvelous ingenuity.
Perhaps we could call this the “convergent design thesis.”
**Designer-guided evolution would be a different story.
Here’s another example you’ll probably think is evidence to support your argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH3KYBMpxOU
The problem with your argument is known in statistics as the “cherry picking fallacy”, which means pointing to individual cases that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position. You pointed to a few cases that show humans following nature unknowingly. But to prove your point, you need to show that this happens a lot. The less it happens, the weaker your argument becomes. I can’t think of many cases where this has happened, beyond the few you mentioned. I can think of countless cases where humans have not followed nature (as far as we know).
This begs the question: if evolution were true, would you ever expect animals to have evolved effective mechanisms that could work in human inventions, at least once in a while? To me the answer would be “yes”. If so, is it reasonable to assume that humans would, on rare occasion, invent something that unknowingly also appears in nature? To me the answer is again “yes”. Over the entire history of our race, I think it highly unlikely that we would have never invented anything that unknowingly also evolved in animals.
I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I constantly marvel at the complexity and beauty of creation, and advanced minds that have the ability to discuss it.
it isn’t reasonable to expect blind processes and intelligent agents to independently produce analogous mechanisms.
This is the position of those who see complexity, marvel, and then blindly attribute it to Oogity Boogity as the more rational conclusion to those who bother to study complexity, marvel, and then attribute it to what came before. The former is promoted by a lot of theology that supplies different names for Oogity Boogity and then claims only what evidence appears to fit. The latter is promoted by those who honestly want to inquire into how nature works. For example, the gears of Issus coleoptratus – to use your example – appear only in the juvenile and they are the only gears to have been found (so far) in all of biology. When you insert this knowledge into your claim about these gears are good evidence for ‘design’ in nature, please note how this additional knowledge simply makes no sense as an applicable explanation for it, nor is there any attempt to explain why the gears drop away with development into adulthood and why this ‘design’ seems to be unique to these hoppers.
The decision to assign magical design to what we find in nature is always tempting because it’s so easy. The problem, however, is that this easy answer is extraordinarily shallow and when examined closely and this explanation produces… exactly nothing. It is a way for people to assume answers (regardless if they are true or not) for which they have no compelling evidence but simply wish to be true. This is why the ‘design’ argument is pure theology and not good science. And we know this because the ‘design’ hypothesis produces zero scientific knowledge… just like all theology. This is an important clue about it’s truth value to describe reality and an indication of just how much trust and confidence we should place in such empty assertions: the same amount we get out of it.
Zero.
“What would be the chances of multiple human inventions unknowingly copying biology if the latter is merely the result of blind processes? “
Extremely high, provided the topology of functional space is sufficiently low-dimensional.
Google “Dennett free-floating rationales” to find out what it looks like when someone is actually interested in figuring out how the world works instead of throwing up their hands and admitting defeat the first time they run into a counterintuitive observation.