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.
“I don’t think anybody believes that “given enough time anything is possible.” That sounds like a straw man - bearing false witness if you will.”
Given enough time, Nothing will evolve to contemplate itself. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to believe? That sounds like it comfortably fits into the “given enough time anything it possible” parameters.
It is, in some ways, the FR funny farm where the endless slagging of one’s disputational (sonetimes, even Dispensational) opponents provides an endless supply of new adjectives and nasty Anglo-Saxon interjections.
Why, it’s a writers’ resource!
;-)
Still looking for the proof that it's impossible for God to create life with the ability to evolve.......
*****Still looking for the proof that it’s impossible for God to create life with the ability to evolve*****
God did create life with the ability to evolve.... within a created kind. I believe that on faith based on the historic, archaeologic and prophetic proofs of the accuracy of scripture and the study of that scripture.
You have accepted by faith that God created via evolution from a magic cell in a mud puddle to us humans. Apparently (I can’t read your mind) this is no problem for you theologically (If you are a believer is Christ).
Biblically it would render null and void the entire reason Christ took on flesh and died for us in the first place. I can elaborate if you’d like.
This doesn't disprove Darwinism, but it makes makes macroevolution more and more like a fairy tale that gives comfort to secular humanists, but which at the same time, is more and more impossible to believe.
Somehow one of the gears floating around in the warm cosmic soup was bombarded with radiation and became a Dynaflow in the ‘53 Roadmaster. Then the division came in........?
I say...Are you paying attention here cause I don’t know if I can repeat this? Thought I saw you nodding off there.....
My first truck, single brake light and headlights only, vacuum powered wipers so they quit working if you tried to speed up on the highway and starter on the floor.
You needed 4 feet to start in on a hill, one on the clutch, one on the brake, one on the gas and one on the starter. Those were the days.
Then there shouldn't be any disagreement on scientific grounds, or reason for the "evolutionists" to be "hopping mad". eh?
****Then there shouldn’t be any disagreement on scientific grounds, or reason for the “evolutionists” to be “hopping mad”. eh?****
Either you didn’t read my whole answer or you chose to ignore it.
Adaptations (evolution) within a created kind... which is what creationists believe.....and evolution from chemicals in a mud puddle to a rational, thinking, reasoning human being... which is what secular science tells us..... are two very different things.
By the way...... I’m not sure why the term “hopping mad” has so many posters on this forum so upset. It’s obviously an attempt to draw people into the article with the use of a pun... albeit a rather poor one.
“Because bugs can jump without “gears,” and they could presumably jump better with simpler versions of the gears than they could without them.”
The argument in the article is that a “simpler” version of the gears would not be beneficial, or neutral, but detrimental. Thus, the same process you propose developed the final version of the gears should have tended to screen out the intermediate forms before they could develop into the current state.
That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis.
Yes, because you've been to so many colloquia and conferences held by mainstream evolutionary biologists and, during the Q&A period, have consistently stumped all those PhDs with your insoluble conundrum.
I know that that sounds like an "Appeal to Authority" (a famous fallacy), but I simply wanted to express my incredulity at your remark about reputable biologists with "frozen minds" making "stuttering sounds."
Regards,
“It doesn’t but that there law of entropy stuff sure would seem to indicate you can’t make something out of nothing without outside work being applied.”
Outside work is regularly applied to most everything on Earth. It’s called sunlight.
I’m no Darwinist, but that is just a really bad argument.
Are you perhaps a member of the board which decides which "theories" are elevated to the status of "laws" and when "laws" get downgraded to "theories?"
Hint: There aint no such board, commission, or council.
Regards,
LOL! Actually, that is very close to the view that SpaceBar espouses on this thread:
"For all of human history, that which resides beyond the current limits of understanding of the physical world is due to magic and the supernatural."
Which when boiled down can be translated to: "we don't understand now how this was accomplished by evolutionary processes - but given enough time we eventually will."
And if you're still stuck on the phrase "anything is possible", perhaps I should re-write, and restate you position to be: "Everything we see is possible, if evolution is given enough time."
Does that work better?
***That’s not evolution. That’s abiogenesis.****
Yes it is.... and it is where they say life began. You can’t talk about the evolution of life without positing where it started.
“This is called science... ignore truth in order to support your worldview... that nature is all there is and no other possibilities can even be considered.”
Well, they’re naturalists, so they can never admit a supernatural cause into their theories. However, when they run into a problem that can’t be solved without a supernatural cause, they don’t simple shrug and say “it’s outside the bounds of what science can explain”. No, they have to tie themselves into knots trying to come up with an explanation, even if the limitations of science make it impossible.
Who is "they", and where do "they" say this?
“Entropy law works fine - but only in a pure vacuum is there a complete lack of external energetics.”
Is there really anywhere you can say there is no external input? It’s basic science that every piece of matter in the universe exerts a gravitational force on every other piece of matter in the universe. The effect may be so infintesimal, you don’t need to account for it in calculations, but it is still there. Ditto for electromagnetic fields that expand outwards to infinity in all directions.
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.