This is from Science Daily. While you read about it, think about whether blind, naturalistic forces could account for the designs you see around you. Not to mention the design of molecular machines deep inside the cell.
Excerpt:
Peer into any fishbowl, and you’ll see that pet goldfish and guppies have nimble fins. With a few flicks of these appendages, aquarium swimmers can turn in circles, dive deep down or even bob to the surface.
New research led by the University of Colorado Boulder has uncovered the engineering secrets behind what makes fish fins so strong yet flexible. The team’s insights could one day lead to new designs for robotic surgical tools or even airplane wings that change their shape with the push of a button.
The researchers published their results Aug. 11 in the journal Science Robotics.
Francois Barthelat, senior author of the study, noted that fins are remarkable because they can achieve feats of dexterity even though they don’t contain a single muscle. (Fish move these structures by twitching sets of muscles located at the base of the fins).
“If you look at a fin, you’ll see that it’s made of many stiff ‘rays,'” said Barthelat, professor in the Paul M. Rady Department of Mechanical Engineering. “Each of those rays can be manipulated individually just like your fingers, but there are 20 or 30 of them in each fin.”
In their latest research, Barthelat and his colleagues drew on a range of approaches, including computer simulations and 3D-printed materials, to dive deep into the biomechanics of these agile structures. They report that the key to fish fins may lie in their unique design. Each ray in a fin is made up of multiple segments of a hard material that stack on top of much softer collagen, making them the perfect balance between bouncy and stiff.
“You get this dual capability where fins can morph, and yet they’re still quite stiff when they push water,” he said.
When you’re talking about science in debates, make sure that you insist that your opponent produce arguments and scientific evidence to support their claims. I have yet to hear a good argument for naturalism from my fellow software engineers. Their favorite arguments seem to reference the “miracles” they see in science fiction entertainment, which are asserted as compatible with naturalism. For example, the transporter in Star Trek. I once had a co-worker propose that to me as a disproof of souls. Secular leftists just watch tons and tons of this make-believe, and they just absorb this view that the evidence we see for a Creator and Designer can all be dismissed because “science will find a way to do it”. That’s faith. What actual experimental science says is “this is engineered”.
