Researchers have a hard time figuring out how these huge animals can stand on such dainty feet.
Summary: Some veterinary scientists in the U. K. are trying to discover how the dainty little pigeon-toed feet of a rhinoceros can support its huge weight. A rhino can weigh as much as 8,000 pounds (3,600 kilograms), but somehow his feet manages just fine.
The researchers coaxed three white rhinos to walk across a “pressure pad” embedded with thousands of pressure sensors. The scientists collected data on how much force the beasts exert on different parts of their feet as they walk. Initial results show toes feel pressures of up to 75 pounds per square inch (psi) while the pads on their feet feel 15 psi.
"Impressively, the peak pressures aren't that different from human feet (similar range of values), although the timing and distribution of pressures around the feet surely are different to some degree we haven't yet quantified," said John Hutchinson, professor of evolutionary biomechanics at the Royal Veterinary College.
The scientists are also comparing how the locomotion of rhinoceroses differs from that of other large animals like elephants. Compared to the column-like legs of elephants, rhinos’ legs are thinner and splay out into larger circular pads tipped with three rigid toes. Their bodies look like they are teetering on four saplings. The two animals carry their weight differently too. "Rhinos put more pressure on the inside [edge] of their feet; elephants on the outside, which is weird and we don't really understand it yet," Hutchinson said.
Because the rhinoceroses proved somewhat reluctant to follow the directions of the researchers, what good is this research? Hutchinson said the project could help detect and treat abnormal foot pressure patterns in rhinos that could indicate health problems, potentially a serious issue with large land mammals. Secondly, learning how rhinos carry their bulk with minimal pressure on the feet could help engineers design heavy load lifters, “but we still have a ways to go before we can really suggest new inspirations for design."
To read the entire article, click on YAHOO NEWS.
Comment: I hope followers of this blog are not getting bored with the frequent stories that point out evidence of “intelligent design” in various creatures. But the more stories like this one which get reported, the harder it is to continue to insist that living organisms are nothing more than the result of natural processes.
Here we have a huge animal which doesn’t look like it should be able to stand up on its relatively skinny legs, but it does and it does so without complaining. We can hear the amazement in Mr. Hutchinson’s comments about this ability being “weird and we don’t really understand it yet.” As for the possibility engineers might copy this design when planning for new and improved heavy load lifters, Mr. Hutchinson indicated scientists still have a ways to go yet in completely understanding the rhino and its locomotion and how its design can be used by human inventors.
The practice of studying nature in order to design human “inventions” and new ways of doing things is known as biomimicry or bionics. Again, there are so many examples of biomimicry, one wonders why humans, the most advanced species, are able to learn so many lessons from these less-advanced species if evolution is true.
When commenting on the wickedness of the citizens of Jerusalem during His time, Jesus made reference to another well-designed albeit lowly creature, the chicken. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing“ (Matthew 23:37).
Like the compassion a hen has for her chicks, Jesus has compassion for all of us. We can run away from Him if we wish, but not if we care about our futures. “As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him” (Psalm 103:13). And Jesus had so much compassion for us, He died on a cross so we could be saved.
PRINT (Black type on white background)
********************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to admin@lutheranscience.org].
********************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Is it okay for family members to share the same bath towels?
Not recommended. This practice has the potential to spread skin organisms that can cause skin and other infections. So says Dr. Amesh A. Adalja of the U. of Pittsburgh Medical Center. It would be better if each family member had a designated towel and to wash it weekly in hot water.Source: Spry (January, 2012)
********************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
Were modern rhinos created ex nihilo by God, though? Or did they evolve from the smaller 'proto-rhinos' of the Eocene (e.g., Hyrachyus)? The fossil record suggests that modern rhinos descended from animals similar to tapirs. If you equate evolution with godlessness -- as creationists are apt to do -- then modern rhino feet probably aren't "intelligently designed".
ReplyDeleteI do not know what the original ancestor from which the rhino descended (not evolved) looked like. But contrary to what you said, the rhinoceros actually validates the idea of intelligent design, because their feet and legs are not what human designers would have come up with, yet these animals do quite well with what they have, to the amazement/puzzlement of the scientists who studied them. That suggests a divine designer who knows more than we do.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. According to William Paley's original analogy, we can attribute intelligent design to an object because it resembles something that a human WOULD design (the classic watchmaker argument). Now you're saying that we should infer intelligent design when an object resembles something that a human WOULDN'T design. You can't have it both ways. That's disingenuous, and plays right into the counter-argument that intelligent design explains nothing (because it explains everything).
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, what would something look like if it wasn't designed?
Another point to consider: intelligent design proponents will often argue that similarity in design points to a common designer. Here, the article in question indicates that rhino and elephant limbs are designed differently to handle the weight of their bodies. Does that imply that rhinos and elephants were created by different designers?
“Intelligent design explains nothing (because it explains everything).” Hmmm, just like how I have heard natural
ReplyDeleteselection described.
If something gives evidence of having been designed by an intelligence, I would call that intelligent design, whether it is something a human might design or something even better than what a human would design. The whole practice of biomimicry, which was suggested in this story, is built on the realization that there are designs in nature that humans haven’t thought of yet, an indication that there is a Designer of nature.
As for your other point, are you claiming that designers, whether human or divine, must make all their creations look exactly alike? Surely there are many more similarities between elephants and rhinoceroses than there are differences, anyway. Nutcracker, I think you are grasping at straws now.
Why would you knock natural selection, Editor? It's the process by which so-called "kinds" are thought to have diversified after getting off the Ark, according to the creationist literature:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/natural-selection
Methinks you're just trying to be contradictory, regardless of what it means for your integrity.
Regardless, please answer my first question: What does non-design look like? If intelligent design is a scientific theory that deserves to be taught alongside evolution, it must be falsifiable in the Popperian sense. And if it's falsifiable, it must be able to predict what design and non-design would look like in nature. What say you?
Regarding the differences between rhino and elephant legs, you've just proved my point that the "same design, same designer" argument is an empty platitude. If the same designer can create different designs (think of a single artist working in different media), and different artists can create similar designs (think of two artists working in the same medium), then there is nothing to the argument because it, too, is unfalsifiable.
Please address these concerns directly, rather than trying to switch the subject to the perceived difficulties of evolutionary theory, as you are prone to do. Simply trying to poke holes in evolution doesn't make "Lutheran science" a credible alternative.
Nutcracker, I didn’t think I would have to explain “design” because I believe it is obvious to most people. However, you asked for a definition, so without checking a dictionary I will give it a shot. I would describe design in the context in which we have been using it as “the evident product of an intelligent mind which serves a useful purpose” such as an automobile engine or the human eye or even a beautiful painting. A “non-design” would then be the result of randomness or chaos.
ReplyDeleteI am greatly surprised that you accused me of “knocking” natural selection in my comments above because I have written about it many times, in fact earlier this month. The Jan. 2 post had the title/subtitle of “Bugs Becoming Resistant to Corn Toxin / An example of natural selection, but is it evolution?” I mentioned natural selection above only because you wrote about intelligent design as supposedly explaining nothing because it explains everything. Your comment was a near-copy of the remark by Neo-Darwinist Richard Lewontin (reference: http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html) who said, "Natural selection explains nothing, because it explains everything."
I can’t quite follow your argument about what is or isn’t “falsifiable,” but I do know Darwinism is not ”falsifiable,” which is why it is still officially a “theory” (or an hypothesis) and not a “fact.”
Sorry that you apparently are upset with my explanations regarding the fallacies and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, but I am willing to spend hours and hours on this blog and on my other work for the Science Institute in appreciation for God having rescued me from falling into the evolution abyss during the college days. While I was teetering on the brink, He showed me via my studies in creation science and the Word of God that evolution theory is not what it is cracked up to be, not by a long shot.
I appeal to you again to stop living in a state of denial and return to the truth of the Bible with its wonderful promise of a blissful and eternal life in heaven for all who have repented of their sins and now follow Christ and His Word.
Hi Editor,
ReplyDeletePlease note that I didn't ask you to provide a definition of what design is. I asked you to explain how design is recognized, and likewise, how non-design is recognized. You've avoided answering this question, opining instead that design is "obvious". Kind of like your position on how to recognize "kinds". That's not very helpful.
Regardless, let's work with what you have said. You've argued that design reflects purpose, whereas non-design reflects "randomness and chaos". Are purposefulness and randomness mutually exclusive, as you imply, though? What about an abstract painter who randomly flings paint at a canvas with the purpose of creating art? More importantly, what about the words of the Bible itself? What about Proverbs 16:33, which states that even random events -- like the casting of dice -- are under God's control? What about Isaiah 45:7, which states that God creates calamity/disaster/evil (choose your definition)? If God can use randomness and disaster to fulfill His purpose, doesn't this fly in the face of your position that randomness precludes design? What does this mean for your position on evolution? You like to claim the "biblical" high ground on these issues, but I have to wonder whether your theology of nature is truly biblical at all.
(As an aside, it's funny that you should say that evolution is not falsifiable when this entire blog is dedicated to falsifying evolution. Another example of contradiction trumping integrity.)
Nutcracker, in your comments above you gave no indication that you checked out the link I provided in my previous message. So, before I publish any more of your comments or respond to them, I want you to carefully read the contents of that link (actually a chapter from a book) and provide your response. (Put John Woidke’s paper on the back burner for now.) I do not recognize the name of the author, Kevin Kelly (founder of Wired magazine), or any of the names of the reviewers who approved of his work as being linked to either the creationist or the Intelligent Design communities. Nevertheless, in his comments, Kelly repeats many of the problems creationists have been pointing out for years regarding evolution theory. I have provided a number of direct quotes below.
ReplyDeleteThe link again is http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html
" ‘It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution.’
“Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed; therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin, have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in public.” (Another indication that there is pressure on scientists to conform to the establishment theory even if they privately may have serious doubts .)
“What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes.”
“No one was more sensitive to the weaknesses of Darwinian theory than Darwin himself. As an example of trouble, Darwin volunteered the astounding multifaceted sophistication of the human eye. (Every critic of Darwin since has also used his example.)”
“Until evolution is duplicated under controlled conditions, in the wild, or in a lab, neodarwinism remains a nice "just-so" story -- more like history than science. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said bluntly that neodarwinism is not a scientific theory at all, since it cannot be falsified.”
“These careful measurements prove that self-governing adaptation does spontaneously occur in nature. They also unequivocally demonstrate that noticeable change can emerge on its own by summing up the steady unnoticeable work of incremental deletions of the unfit. But the results do not show new levels of diversity, new kinds of creatures, or even new complexity emerging.”
“Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history.” (Creationists will grant that depending on how the word “species” is defined, some new species have appeared.)
“No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or removes it from our sight.”
“As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, ‘Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough.... Mutations provide change, but not progress.’ So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange -- a trend in variations -- no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange -- the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity.”