But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated.

Biology has progressed tremendously due to the model that Darwin put forth. But the black boxes Darwin accepted are now being opened, and our view of the world is again being shaken.

Skin is made in large measure of a protein called collagen.

This fact immediately suggested a singular event - that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event - the creation, the beginning of the universe.

The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.

In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines.

A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed.

The basic structure of proteins is quite simple: they are formed by hooking together in a chain discrete subunits called amino acids.

It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural.

But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.

In Darwin's time all of biology was a black box: not only the cell, or the eye, or digestion, or immunity, but every biological structure and function because, ultimately, no one could explain how biological processes occurred.

The question of how the eye works - that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina - simply could not be answered at that time.

The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.

Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted.

It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed.

We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box.

Thus it seemed to Haeckel that such simple life could easily be produced from inanimate material.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked.

Throughout history there have been many other examples, similar to that of Haeckel, Huxley and the cell, where a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle was beyond the understanding of the age.

It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection.

Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on.

Proteins are the machinery of living tissue that builds the structures and carries out the chemical reactions necessary for life.

It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.

In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them.

As can be seen even by this limited number of examples proteins carry out amazingly diverse functions.

The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data we should not shrink from it we should embrace it and build on it.

I think that's created a healthy environment. The comparisons to "ER" were maddening and there was this assumption that the two of us were looking at each other with rage and resentment, which was also not the case.

People will always make comparisons.

All comparisons between America's current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire.

Once people start making comparisons to a player of the past, they want you to be that player. I try to go out there and create my own image, my own style, my own type of game. Right now I can't even think of one guy I've been compared to.

We were in the same band, but we're two completely different people. People have asked me to make comparisons with our albums, and I can't, because there's no comparison. Her album's okay. I don't think she's the best singer on Earth, but she's okay.

Judgment traps you within the limitations of your comparisons. It inhibits freedom.

I think comparisons are odious.

Things are as they are. Looking out into it the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.

But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.

But it really wasn't until three to four years later, when we had an opportunity in the lab to make very detailed observations, and comparisons with other fossil discoveries, that we realized she was a new species of human ancestor.

I worked at NBC and MTV for two years, and it was very interesting to see the comparisons of audiences and the way that I would have to present a story to the two different places.

A wise man looks upon men as he does on horses; all their comparisons of title, wealth, and place, he consider but as harness.

Because of recent improvements in the accuracy of theoretical predictions based on large scale ab initio quantum mechanical calculations, meaningful comparisons between theoretical and experimental findings have become possible.

There's always going to be comparisons, and that's unavoidable. There are people out there who feel I hit my peak with Magician and have gone downhill since.

Comparisons are really no good in sport, especially if it is a comparison between different eras and generations, for there are so many variables that come into play, starting from the quality of the opposition to playing conditions.

The mind of a human being is formed only of comparisons made in order to examine analogies, and therefore cannot precede the existence of memory.

The surest route to breeding jealousy is to compare. Since jealousy comes from feeling less than another, comparisons only fan the fires.

I have never believed in comparisons, whether they are about different eras, players or coaches.

How would you compare Polanski or Kubrick? I try not to do any comparisons.

We need to keep investing in economic and homeland security. We need to bank on the right kind of economic development. We need to embrace opportunities, but with the right kind of safeguards.

The other great development has been in photography, but that too was influenced by Conceptual art.