As if having withstood a terrorist attack, “Evolution [is] still scientifically stable,” announced a Monash university press release. After a threat from a non-Darwinian explanation, “An international team of researchers, including Monash University biochemists, has discovered evidence at the molecular level in support of one of the key tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Actually, no intelligent design scientist specifically addressed the subject matter under study. Trevor Lithgow and the other scientists used evolutionary theory to try to show that a transporter system in mitochondria was not “irreducibly complex.” That term was coined in an influential I.D. book by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University,2 but he did not use this transporter system as an example. Nevertheless, the press release stated that the paper published in PNAS1 “provides a blueprint for a general understanding of the evolution of the ‘machinery’ of our cells.” The Darwinists understand that molecular machinery presents a challenge. “Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines,” Lithgow noted. “These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial.” The press release mentioned intelligent design then knocked it down with the research. Lithgow stood over the defeated non-Darwinian explanation, exclaiming, “Our work … shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be.” In the scientific journals, controversies are supposed to be aired. Didn’t any I.D. supporters fight back? Actually, they did. Michael Behe himself wrote a response to PNAS, but they refused to print it. If you want the comeback arguments, you will have to look in the I.D. literature, because the Darwin-controlled journals are announcing their win by muffling the outcries of the opponents. PhysOrg reprinted the press release without “teaching the controversy.” Here’s where you can find responses by I.D. scientists and reporters: Behe on Evolution News and Uncommon Descent, Luskin on Evolution News, and Cornelius Hunter on Darwin’s God.1. Clements et al, “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, August 26, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908264106.2. Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press 1996. This is the only way the Darwinists win. They close the doors and announce themselves the winner. Meanwhile, nature is held hostage to their bluffing. This is analogous to certain news networks that always give the liberal spin and refuse to report news that is embarrassing to liberalism. Here, we report both sides so you can decide who makes a stronger case. Lithgow doesn’t have much to bluff about with us. He earned Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week with his inebriated worship of Tinker Bell: “Francois Jacob described evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions. Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob’s proposition, and shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be.”(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
上海品茶 高端 微信
If you subtract value from an opportunity, remove yourself from that opportunity. But be smart about it, and work with your team to make smart trades. Go where you can create the most value. Essential Reading! Get my 2nd book: The Lost Art of Closing “In The Lost Art of Closing, Anthony proves that the final commitment can actually be one of the easiest parts of the sales process—if you’ve set it up properly with other commitments that have to happen long before the close. The key is to lead customers through a series of necessary steps designed to prevent a purchase stall.” Buy Now Once upon a time, my little team won a massive client. They developed excellent relationships with stakeholders throughout the organization. We were doing excellent work, and things couldn’t have been going any better. And then I was asked to meet with the decision-maker, the real authority in the deal.I presented information. He pushed back. I shared some of our insights that would have helped the decision-maker and his team produce even better results. He reflexively shot them down. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the information, ideas, or insights. It had everything to do with me.This decision-maker didn’t care for me. For him, I didn’t add anything to the deal, and there was no reason for me to be there. It was clear to everyone in the room–me included. When we returned to my office, I told my team I was no longer going to help them with this client. There were no protestations to the contrary!We made the same decision to self-select out of deals dozens more times, mostly while the client was still a prospect. If someone isn’t the right fit for a particular client or stakeholder, they’re not the right fit. No reason trying to force a fit.Self-select out: If you aren’t the right fit for a client or stakeholder, don’t do the client, your company, and your team a disservice by being so territorial as to cost everyone what could be a long, productive, and profitable relationship. Take yourself out of the deal.Trade up: This is tough to do with today’s geographic territories being what they are (and with organizations drawing geographic lines that serve them instead of their customers), but you can trade up for an opportunity where you might be a better fit. If your group and territories are right, swap prospects with someone you believe will be a better fit. Trade one of yours for one of theirs.Acquired taste: As always, there are exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions). I had one client who had an exceptional employee whose sense of style and fashion was way over the top. But they needed him on a potential client because he produced rock star results. Unfortunately, this client was ultraconservative. It was a total mismatch. They called the prospect before the meeting and told them to prepare to be shocked by this gentleman’s appearance. They oversold it, too. When the fashion misfit showed up, the client was expecting Marilyn Manson. They weren’t all that shocked, and they loved him because of his deep expertise of the subject matter.