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.
When I was in school it was called "The Theory of Evolution". We covered the definition of the word "theory" some time before that, which explained that theories are not facts, and that there can be conflicting theories about the same thing.
Are they not doing that any more?
Can you show me this definition that states that evolution is random and purposeless?
And now in this response to me you call my noticing your introduction of the problem of induction into the discussion "a straw man argument".
I'll tell you what; find one observation of a genetic mutation increasing coded information and you falsify schaef21's conclusion and win the argument. Nothing extreme about that.
Cordially,
If you find one fossilized skeleton of homo sapiens in the same strata as fossilized dinosaur bones, and you can falsify ToE. To me the difference is that the "Theory" part of ToE means they're at least honest enough to admit that the might be wrong.
****When I was in school it was called “The Theory of Evolution”. We covered the definition of the word “theory” some time before that, which explained that theories are not facts, and that there can be conflicting theories about the same thing.
Are they not doing that any more?***
Tacticalogic..... come on now. Are you being purposefully obtuse? If you are paying attention at all you know what is going on.
As someone who believes that life was caused by an intelligence, you are being mocked by the establishment as an uninformed boob.... I’m not sure why you don’t want to recognize that.
What I'm not understanding is how them being wrong is making you right.
***Can you show me this definition that states that evolution is random and purposeless?***
I apologize for having to fill in the blanks on your belief system...... the more you post, the more it is becoming clear.
You believe that life came about as a result of intelligence... although you don’t want to commit to who or what that intelligence is. You further believe that the intelligence responsible for life used evolution to create and therefore the evolution is not random and purposeless (which, believe me, is the way it is taught in our high schools and universities) but directed and purposeful.
I get it.
The secular science elites decided a long time ago that they would only look for natural causes.... for the universe, for life, for everything. As such their premise demands only natural solutions.... if there is no intelligence (which natural causes would rule out) then evolution has to be random and without purpose.... there is no other way. One only has to listen to the rantings of Dawkins, Myers, Bill Nye The Science Guy or any of the other mockers/spokesmen for evolution to understand that.
Their premise rules.... although I would say that their premise is random (they can’t empirically know that there is a natural cause for everything, nevertheless it is their inviolable premise), it is also purposeful. The purpose is to remove other viewpoints from getting a critical review.
Listen Tacticalogic, you are welcome to hold any view that you want for any reason you want but please recognize what is going on.
***What I’m not understanding is how them being wrong is making you right.***
It doesn’t make you right, either. What we can both do is look empirically at the evidence, test what we can test and come to a conclusion.
What we are doing on this forum is defending our beliefs, nothing more.
Karl Popper, who is recognized by many as the preeminent philosopher of science of the 20th century said this:
“Genuine science invites refutation; pseudoscience tries to silence dissent.”
Those who hold your views as well as mine are being silenced. I would think that we can both agree that is wrongheaded.
I have personal opinions about who or what that intelligence is. I do not present them as fact and demand other people acknowledge it as fact. If you can't deal with that, then we probably shouldn't be having this conversation.
I think we both agree they are wrong. We have differences of opinion in our personal theologies. You seem to be intent on "fixing" what's wrong with my religious beliefs, and irritated because I won't cooperate by telling you exactly what they are.
****I have personal opinions about who or what that intelligence is. I do not present them as fact and demand other people acknowledge it as fact. If you can’t deal with that, then we probably shouldn’t be having this conversation.****
****I think we both agree they are wrong. We have differences of opinion in our personal theologies. You seem to be intent on “fixing” what’s wrong with my religious beliefs, and irritated because I won’t cooperate by telling you exactly what they are.****
I’m not sure why you’ve got your back up so far. The purpose of this forum (and most others) is to discuss. I don’t believe that you can find anywhere a post of mine where I have “demanded that others accept as fact” anything other than facts.
Being part of a forum involves persuasion....in order to persuade, you have to understand where the person on the other side of the conversation stands. That’s all I was trying to do.... understand where you are.
I enjoy a lively discussion on this topic, apparently you view it as an irritant. In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart: “Sorry about that, Chief”
I wish you the best.
Is it not the objective of ICR to get the literal interpretation of Genesis accepted as scientific fact, and do you not support their efforts?
If not, the I have misunderstood the situation.
Our disagreement seems to be that in the context of a discussion about a scientific theory, you can't understand "where I am" without knowing what my religous beliefs are, and I don't think that's supposed to be part of the criteria for evaluating an argument.
***Our disagreement seems to be that in the context of a discussion about a scientific theory, you can’t understand “where I am” without knowing what my religous beliefs are, and I don’t think that’s supposed to be part of the criteria for evaluating an argument.***
Au contraire, Tacticalogic. I know right where you are.... at one point I asked a very simple question about whether you thought the God of the Bible might be the Creator and you refused to answer it. That was the extent of the “religious” part of this discussion.
Even without that info, I still know right where you are.
Even without that info, I still know right where you are.
Are you sure enough of your own infallibility that you don't consider what the consequences will be if you are wrong?
***Is it not the objective of ICR to get the literal interpretation of Genesis accepted as scientific fact, and do you not support their efforts?***
First of all, I have no connection with ICR other than I get their emails and read some of their stuff. I also agree with them and yes, I support their efforts.
As far as getting literal Genesis accepted as scientific fact, that is not possible. The constructs of science don’t allow for it.
Facts are facts on both sides of the argument. If something meets the standards of the scientific method and is testable, repeatable and falsifiable there can be no argument on EITHER side.
Neither the theory of evolution or special creation meet the criteria of the scientific method.
When they dig a bone out of the ground one side evaluates it by saying “evolution is true, now let’s evaluate it”. The other side says “it was created.” The question becomes which worldview is correct and what is most logical..... neither side can prove it. You have chosen to believe pieces from both sides of the argument.
I have very good reasons for believing what I believe and I’ve devoted much of the last 10 years of my life studying it.... so I don’t come to my conclusion irrationally or because I’ve been “brainwashed” by my “religion”.
You have said several times that something is “possible”. You wouldn’t say it was possible if there was any empirical evidence, you’d use the scientific method to back it up.
You therefore are operating under a “faith” system just like me and those who agree with me and evolutionists and those who agree with them.
I’d love to lay out my arguments for you but you’ve made it quite evident that you don’t want to hear them. So be it.
There are no Evolutionists.
There are educated and uneducated in matters of science
I'll discuss evidence.
If your arguments involve having to assume your religious beliefs in order to interpret the evidence, not so much.
***If your arguments involve having to assume your religious beliefs in order to interpret the evidence, not so much.***
Your beliefs are religious as well.
Evidence requires interpretation. Interpretations are made within a worldview. Mine is faith-based (religious), so is yours, so are atheist/evolutionists.... they are religious because NONE of them can be proven by observable, testable facts.
This is from the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”:
“The Creation/Evolution debate is not about religion versus science or the Bible versus science - it’s about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it’s not about faith versus reason - it’s about reasonable faith versus unreasonable faith”.
I agree with the authors.
Using Ockham’s Razor, what makes the most sense?
None of what can be "proven by observable, testables facts"? I cannot tell exactly what the subject of that proclaimation is supposed to be. You were talking about "worldviews", but I don't quite get the significance of not being able to measure or test a worldview.
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.