Those americanisms chill my **** ! like " from the get go " ! "Aks" ! and the wannabe gangster crap that young Charltons and Williams etc try and rap. And loads of other moronic mutterings like those , wtf grrrr
unequivocally true this statement, and very irritating indeed, but do not cogitate over it too much 55, it will do your head in................
I hate the way the younger generation misuse the word 'fun'. I would say "That was so much fun". They say "that was so fun." I really feel uncomfortable with it. Just doesn't sound right. Even worse is "That was the funnest time I've had." I cringe every time.
And now for something completely different!............ Molecular machines have posed a stark challenge to those who seek to understand them in Darwinian terms as the products of an undirected process. In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe explained the surprising discovery that life is based upon machines: Shortly after 1950 science advanced to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. Slowly, painstakingly, the structures of more and more biological molecules were elucidated, and the way they work inferred from countless experiments. The cumulative results show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines--machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along "highways" made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus, the details of life are finely calibrated and the machinery of life enormously complex. Behe then posed the question, “Can all of life be fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution?,” and answered: "The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet impenetrable barrier to Darwinism's universal reach." Even those who disagree with Behe’s answer to that question have marveled at the complexity of molecular machines. In 1998, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts wrote the introductory article to an issue of Cell, one of the world’s top biology journals, celebrating molecular machines. Alberts praised the “speed,” “elegance,” “sophistication,” and “highly organized activity” of “remarkable” and “marvelous” structures inside the cell. He went on to explain what inspired such words: The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Likewise, in 2000 Marco Piccolini wrote in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology that “extraordinary biological machines realize the dream of the seventeenth- century scientists … that ‘machines will be eventually found not only unknown to us but also unimaginable by our mind.’” He notes that modern biological machines “surpass the expectations of the early life scientists.” Everything in life is better by design...........
Darwin knew his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. … What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive slight modifications”? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
IMO Well who else's opinion is going to be, you feckin wrote it! Disclaimer: I have wrote it once or twice, if you find a post I've stated 'imo' it can be disregarded as I clearly wasn't thinking straight at the time
If your talking to me, then my last post was Darwin talking? Of course if you were not my apologise................
