For example, here:
… biomolecular machines have a major difference that distinguishes them from human technology: their energetic efficiency dwarfs our best accomplishments. One paper observes that molecular machines “are generally more efficient than their macroscale counterparts,” and another suggests that the efficiency of the bacterial flagellum “could be ~100%.” Human engineers can only dream of creating such devices. (For a discussion of the flagellum, see “Motor Works” in Salvo 15.)
Molecular machines also pose a stark challenge to Darwinian evolution.
– Casey Luskin, “Bio-Mechanics: Don’t the Intricacy & Ubiquity of Molecular Machines Provide Evidence for Design?”, Salvo 20
Hmmm. Stark challenge? Nothing poses a stark challenge to Darwinian evolution these days, because any nonsense whatever can be conjured in its support, to wild applause from very tame people.
Instead of calling it “nature” – which, these days, caters publicly to Darwin cultists – we really should hereafter call it the design of life.
Follow UD News at Twitter!