Posted on 09/24/2013 8:01:13 AM PDT by fishtank
'Living Gears' Might Have Evolutionists Hopping Mad by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
When planthoppers hop, they really do pop. These tiny creatures fling themselves with such fury that, frankly, things would go awry if their jumping mechanisms were not properly tuned. For example, if one leg hopped a bit sooner or with slightly greater force than the other, the insect would just fling itself sideways. Good thing tiny gears synchronize their hind legs.
Well, technically the planthopper in question is a youngster—a nymph planthopper. But sure enough, Bristol biologist Greg Sutton found two minute rows of interlocking teeth at the base of the insect's legs. When it jumps, the gears mesh, keeping the two legs in lock-step. Sutton captured the gear action, which lasts for just a few milliseconds, using high-speed cameras. This remarkable mechanism helps the planthopper launch itself hundreds of times its body length with a single jump.
According to NPR Morning Edition, Sutton said this is "the first mechanical gear system ever observed in nature."1
It may be the first gear system ever actually observed, but it is not the first known. Scientists have been examining the effects of molecular gears for some time.
Bacterial flagella, for instance, incorporate a gear system that runs at variable speeds—forward and reverse—and that even has a clutch that can disengage the motor from the flagellar propeller.2 In 2008, biochemists also reported molecular gears found in a viral DNA packaging motor.3
These examples—all appearing as if they just rolled out of a miniature machine-shop—clearly indicate a meticulous and intentional design too difficult for evolutionists to explain. Surely these living gears could only have been created.
References
Cole, A. Living Gears Help This Bug Jump. NPR Morning Edition. Posted on npr.org September 13, 2013, accessed September 14, 2013.
Thomas, B. Bacterial Clutch Denotes Design. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 1, 2008, accessed September 16, 2013.
Thomas, B. Virus Motors Impossible for Evolution. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 9, 2009, accessed September 16, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on September 23, 2013.
Believe me, I know what it is. I don’t buy it.
Dogma is immune to reason.
Then state the theory of evolution by natural selection.
The irony is that one of the most important parts of Christian dogma is that “ lies make baby Jesus cry.”
Is there something wrong with Creationists using the term 'evolution' in the same sense that atheistic evolutionists use it? Logically, abiogenesis must be the fundamental starting assumption for Darwinian evolution unless one assumes the existence of God. Abiogenesis is required by naturalistic evolution as its starting point.
Cordially,
Reason reveals the underlying contradiction that is the basis of irony. Without reason, there is no irony.
The answer would seem to be implicit in the question. If abiogenesis is only a requirement for evolution if you don't believe in God, then it would be irrational for Creationists argue from the same premise as atheists.
Cordially,
ToE doesn’t posit the origin of life, it only theorizes a mechanism of speciation of existing life. If the atheists insist on misrepresenting that theory and the Creationists want to join them they’re free to do that. I’ll consider both of them equally wrong for doing it. You can’t make a valid argument starting from a flawed premise.
Most "atheistic evolutionists" are actually progressives who are ardent believers in the state religion of the Cathedral ruling class. Your typical Prog is usually ignorant of the theory of evolution by natural selection. They say they accept "evolution" because they think the buzzword is socially acceptable. That's where you see the rather bizarre spectacle of feminists supporting evolution. The Prog's idea of "evolution" resembles "Pokemon evolution" with the pokeball presumably the starting point of Pokemon evolution. If a Prog actually understood the evolutionary process and then realized that it applies to the human brain down to this very day, the implications of this will be quite blasphemous to the dogma of the state progressive religion.
You are exactly right! Evolution and God our Creator go hand in hand for me and they always have. They do not single each other out.
Amen
***Then state the theory of evolution by natural selection.***
Hi R7..... since you’ve only been on this forum for a week, I’ll indulge you. It would be a good idea for you to click on my screen name to find out a little bit more about me. I’ve been posting on this subject at FR for a long time.
My thanks to Diamond in post 105 for clarifying the whole abiogenesis thing.... that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
Your question would indicate that you think I’m not very well read on this subject. I assure you that I am.
Natural selection can be defined as the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.
Natural Selection can allow organisms to survive better in a given environment but it can’t change organisms to survive their environment.
Natural selection can change populations but cannot change individuals.
Natural selection does not increase or provide any new genetic information, it can only select from information that already exists.
Because it can only select from available information, evolutionists say that the new information necessary for macroevolution comes from mutations.
The problem with this is that mutations observably decrease genetic information or they are information neutral. They can rescramble existing information but that’s all.
While on rare occasions a mutation can be beneficial it is not as a result of adding genetic information.
When our High School biology textbooks tell our kids that a bunch of chemicals in a primordial mud puddle coalesced to form life and evolution began they should start that section with “Once Upon a Time”.
Evolution by natural selection, no matter how many textbooks contain that phrase, has never been observed at the macro level.
Here’s a quote from Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History (He’s no creationist, believe me):
“There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that is works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. There is no doubt at all that it works. But the question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked.”
The word "Darwinian" also appears 3 times in reference to the subject matter.
Cordially,
The implication seems to be that the appearance of the word "evolution" in that article is making abiogenesis part of the Theory of Evolution. I don't think it works that way.
Cordially,
Then how come we don't look like? That's new information.
What is it I'm looking for? What is the objective?
If the objective is to find out exactly what the Theory of Evolution does or does not address, the authoritative source would be the theory itself.
TOE is liberalism's god. Not one is willing to accept responsibility for what the TOE pyramid scheme has wrought. And time is not on the evolutionist's side, it has a disintegration time date stamp. All the Bell curve intellectuals to the back of the classroom.
The Publik Schule Sisstem exits not to impart knowledge, but to indoctrinate the children in progressive dogma. That's why you see creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis and you see the bizarre spectical of feminists accepting evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.