How did nature create the hard and sharp beak of the squid? How is the squid, whose body is as dense as soft jelly, able to use its beak to catch prey without cutting itself?
How did nature create the hard and sharp beak of the squid? How is the squid, whose body is as dense as soft jelly, able to use its beak to catch prey without cutting itself?
This question has long intrigued researchers interested in creating new materials that mimic the properties of biological materials. The answer to the question itself was published this week in the journal Science.
The sharp beak of the Humboldt squid is some of the hardest organic matter known to man. Engineers, biologists and marine researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara joined forces to discover how the squid, on its soft, gel-like body, can manipulate the knife-sharp beak without tearing itself apart.
Humboldt squids, or Dosidicus gigas, are about one meter long, and they can kill a fish in one swift motion. According to the article, "...the beak of the squid can sever the spinal cord, paralyze the prey, and obtain a convenient meal for the rest of the day."
"Squids can be aggressive, cuckoo, cruel for no reason, and they're always hungry," said Rabbi White, co-author of the paper and professor of biology at UC Santa Barbara. The main predator of the squid, besides humans, is the sperm whale, on which the war scars are often revealed. The sperm whales' skin is scarred from repeated encounters with the squids. The large molluscs swim using jet propulsion, and are able to move quickly and sharply. "You don't want to dive next to one of them. A dozen of them can eat you, or hurt you really hard."
Frank Zook, a co-author of the paper, described the source of the problem, “You can imagine the problems you would encounter if you attached a knife blade to a jelly cube, and tried to use the blade to cut something. The blade will cut through the jelly as much as it will cut the target. In the case of the squid source, nature takes care of the problem by changing the composition of the source gradually rather than all at once. In this way, the tip of the beak is able to stab prey without harming the squid. This is really fascinating planning!”
Eli Misertz, the lead author of the article and editor of the study, discovered that the secret of the squid's origin lies in its gradually changing structure. The tip of the beak is extremely hard, but as we move away from the tip, the beak gets weaker. The base of the beak itself is a hundred times weaker, and is able to integrate with the surrounding tissue. At the same time, the original retains its gradual hardness only when wet. If it dries out, the entire root will become as hard as the tip.
Zook explained that most of the engineered structures today are made of a combination of very different materials, such as ceramic, metallic and plastic materials. Connecting them all together requires some kind of mechanical coupling, such as screws, nails or epoxy glue. But this approach has limitations.
"If we could mimic the gradual structure present in the octopus's beak, we would open the door to new ways of connecting materials," Zook explained. "For example, if you gave the adhesive a gradual structure, so that its properties correspond to a certain material on one side, and to another material on the other side, you could create a much more suitable link," he said. "This way of thinking could change the way engineers think about attaching materials."
19 תגובות
What are we humans?
Didn't we create ourselves?
Nimrod:
Thanks for the preaching and the grades
Don't forget that we are all human beings who see the world from a very human perspective (and I would say also a little narrow), science today was very primitive regarding the understanding of the cosmos / cosmos (or any other addition that we are not aware of) therefore I would not be willing to put my money on Clocks and not crystals, I look at it as raising hypotheses and experiments in order to extract as much information as possible - in the end when we talk today about time - space, "zero time", strings - we are more or less in the situation of the medieval people who looked at the universe without telescope and hypothesize about the universe, still our physical and perhaps mathematical tools are too weak to come to a general conclusion on issues that are beyond the modern physics of today.
Roy, thanks for the explanation.
The clock analogy fits evolution about as well as the term "nature created". That's why I used it. It seems to me that around the beginning of the 20th century the same analogy was used to prove that life is a deliberate creation. A few decades later, the book "The Blind Watchmaker" was written, which presents evolution as the watchmaker, only blind (for the same reasons you mentioned).
If I still don't understand:
It was still interesting to see those people who have no problem with "Hateva Yitzer" vehemently oppose the watchmaker.
There is no objection to using the term "nature created" since nature is not an entity,
When the writer means and the reader understands that nature is a system of data and changing environmental conditions that do not involve a deliberate hand and certainly not planning.
For those looking for a planning entity... the explanations will not help.
Igal,
thank you for your response. I believe that an expression along the lines of 'nature creates' is not scientific, but it helps a lot to convey the meaning of the question. From my experience in debates with creationists and others, I can say that those who want to find an incorrect and misleading interpretation of expressions and sayings, can do it much more easily than sticking to the wording of the news.
I agree with you that the expression does not fit the evolutionary-scientific approach, but since we are human, it is easier for us to understand things when I phrase them in normal colloquial language.
amber,
You claim that a watch requires a watchmaker. This is a correct assumption, of course - but it is only true for watches.
In nature, complex and interesting structures, such as crystals, are formed as a result of simple intermolecular forces. We already know that DNA crystals can form, and it is assumed that with the help of natural selection these DNA crystals became the first genetic material. We have also known for over fifty years that whenever a fatty substance is mixed with water, bubbles are formed that are identical to the simplest cell membranes. All this, without a creator.
These are just two examples that show that it is possible to create order, without an intentional creator. Other examples abound in the fields of chemistry, physics and biology.
So the real question is this:
Why entangle ourselves with a possible 'creator' (then we must try to think about who he is, what he is, and of course how he was created!), if we have in our hands a mechanism and evidence for the process of creation and self-assembly in nature?
thank you for your response,
Roy.
Igal,
I don't disagree with you that they were not planned in advance but in the process. Actually, I don't disagree with you at all. The parallel to a clock and a watchmaker was made years ago in the book "The Blind Watchmaker" and the contrast you are talking about is found in the name of the book itself. I don't know why I thought the quote was familiar..
Michael,
I did not agree with response 1 - I agreed with the responses to it. The response in the link is one of 2 that I wrote, but does not contradict the scientific approach. In any case, there and here the response came to say with the aim of listening - not arguing.
amber,
I assume that you mainly object to what was said in my response (1), and this is based on the phrase "a watch indicates a watchmaker".
A clock does indicate a watchmaker, but the creatures that exist on earth are not watches. A watch (like any technological product) is designed in an engineering manner and therefore its design has a purpose. As a result, you won't find unnecessary parts in the watch (except maybe for a forgotten screwdriver...) and you will be able to prove that everything is working properly as long as it is in good condition. Living beings are not planned in advance, therefore you will find many unnecessary 'things' in them that sometimes also burden their successful functioning. The functioning of most creatures is not optimal and different parts of their bodies could have been created (not created by way of planning) in a much more successful way. One of the most famous examples is the panda's toe which is like a sixth finger (read Stephen G. Gould's books for example). The finger was not created from a completion of the existing toe but from a protrusion of the bone.
Nature is used by people in these discussions (and probably in others as well) to describe the set of phenomena (including creatures) that exist in our world that are not the result of pre-planning or lack of pre-planning (mainly by man...)
amber:
Maybe I'm really confused.
Aren't you the same Amber who wrote comment 76 here
If you are not the same Amber then I got confused.
By the way, on re-reading I find Ami even more confused:
Did you mean to say that you agree with response number 1 (as I understood at the beginning) or with the responses to 1 (as you wrote) (since then this means that you oppose the opinion expressed in 1)
I think you are confused about me.
In any case, I did not ask what your definition is personally. The question is aimed at anyone who comes across it
amber:
Do you agree with 1?
It is interesting!
Bell, the discussion here is between people who support the scientific approach and Yegel in response 1 says that our expression of this fact is not radical enough and that we should have avoided expressions like nature creates so that people like you do not come and say that nature is God or some intelligent planner.
Why do you ask what my definition of nature is?
What is your definition of the word definition?
I agree with the responses to 1: "A watch indicates a watchmaker" meaning a creation indicates a creator - evolution.
Asking following response 6: What is the definition of "nature"?
She asked her husband, please, in what month will the flight to Hubble leave?
Yigal:
I still don't think that anyone who reads a phrase like "how nature created" will believe that the writer thought even for a moment that nature is an intelligent planner
Michael,
I wasn't talking about those who oppose (to whom there is nothing to explain), but about those who hesitate, who are not sure, who sit on the fence, "who are not closed in on themselves" and whose opinion can be influenced. There should be unequivocal, clear and uncompromising.
There is no problem with what is written, it must be remembered that when we talk about evolution we are talking about the evolutionary mechanism that changes life on earth, what I am actually very interested in is the initial formation of all these things, I will explain my intention, in the context of evolution what is interesting is the initial formation of what who created the first creature that existed, because after that things work out in a way that is more or less clear to us.
In addition, all the physical laws that apply in the entire universe were somehow created at a certain point in time (like the physics that happened between the big bang and the physics that exists today in the cosmos), or the tiny cosmic matter that caused the big bang (whether it is an inflation model or alternatively chained inflation and shrinking), a point "Zero" time is a very interesting thing that we are light years away from understanding and very few people refer to "zero time" (if such a thing exists at all).
Yigal:
I don't see a problem with the wording either.
After all, those who oppose evolution do not need such formulations to oppose, and these formulations will not help him in an argument with the drafter either.
The method of speaking that personifies objects and processes in order to explain their logic is an acceptable method when the interlocutors are all aware of the purpose of the discussion and it simplifies the formulation considerably.
I don't know if you've ever read a newspaper about vehicles, but you'll often find phrases like "it's hard to understand what the vehicle wants". Even there no one thinks that the writer does not understand that the car has no desire.
How did nature create? - With the help of evolution.
Nature takes care of the problem - by the survival of the fittest.
I have no problem with what is written. It is true that the creationist will ask the same questions, but his answer will not be evolution, but if God created.
You don't have to be extreme, and I don't see anything wrong with the way of expression in the article.
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Wise men be careful with your words!
Different sentences in this news are said in the way of the question and leave doubt as to their meaning or hidden meanings in the content. Examples:
"How did nature create..." Nature did not create, it is not God!
"Nature takes care of the problem..." as above
"This is really fascinating planning"??? What planning? Smart? What happened to evolution?
Those who have doubts about evolution will find here a wide area for speculations about the confidence that scientists feel in their words about evolution!