Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded to Three Scientists for Design, Synthesis of Molecular Machines WSJ
“STOCKHOLM—Three European scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for finding ways to energize and steer molecules, . . . The three laureates discovered how to use molecules as components of tiny machines that can be controlled to perform specific tasks.” . . . Such tiny machines, including minuscule motors, blades and switches, can be powered by changes in light, temperature or acidity. “This award is all about the world’s smallest machines,” said Göran K. Hansson, secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences”
“.. . . The development of molecular machines is still in an early stage, comparable, the academy said, to that of the electric motor in the early 19th century, when “scientists displayed various spinning cranks and wheels, unaware that they would lead to electric trains, washing machines, fans and food processors.” These early inventions powered an industrial revolution. Scientists are now hoping for the same at the nano scale. . . . antibiotics could be switched on and off remotely by exposing it to light, potentially allowing the medicine to only target one particular body part. . . . Molecular machinists could also build injectable “microrobots” that could hunt down tumors or ferry drugs to specific tissues, Dr. Feringa said. Scientists have already devised early synthetic versions of some such miniature gadgets. For instance, in 2010, researchers at New York University built tiny DNA walkers capable of shuttling gold particles along a microscopic track. In 2013, chemists at the University of Manchester in the U.K. built a nanorobot capable of stringing together amino acids, mimicking the function of ribosomes, the cellular machines that build proteins. . . .In 1983, Dr. Sauvage took the first step toward building microscopic gadgets when he linked together two ring-shaped molecules that could move relative to each other to form a chain, known as a catenane. . . . In 1991 Dr. Stoddart,. . .demonstrated a molecular ring that could move along a thin molecular axle. These simple dumbbell-shaped devices, known as rotaxanes, have become workhorses of the molecular-machines field.. . .”
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016 “They developed the world’s smallest machines”
“3 Makers of World’s Smallest Machines Awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry” NYT
“Richard Feynman . . .gave a seminal lecture in 1959, toward the end of his life, on design and engineering at the molecular scale.” (See “There’s plenty of room at the bottom”) and “Tiny Machines”.
Compare what has been discovered on biomolecular machines. With awards for the design of molecular machines, compare the more complex machines we see in a living cell with the consequences of chaos. Surely that must bring some insights!
as to:
WOW, when men design molecular machines, although they pale in comparison to what is found in life, it is a Nobel worthy achievement. Yet, when molecular machines are found throughout life then it is all a big yawn because, according to Darwinists, no design was needed and it was all an accident.
Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Darwinian evolution!
I say give God a Nobel prize, and the rich accolades, He rightly deserves!
OT: there was a new book on fine tuning pointed out here or over at END, published by Oxford. Can anyone remember what it was please? I was aiming to add to Christmas list. The book took an open minded agnostic position and examines anthropic arguments.
*ENV
Splatter, I don’t recall any books from Oxford, but this one soon to be released by Cambridge University Press on Nov. 30 caught my eye:
Luke Barnes has a recent video interview as well as this following article in particular that may be of interest to you:
also of interest
That’s the badger.
Why did I remember Oxford? Maybe reference to Sloan. Anyway, will add to pile…
Thank you.
Splatter and News, this may interest you:
semi OT:
Great stuff, as usual, bornagain.
Even diehard atheists know — deep down — that Darwinian evolution has zero chance of creating the incredibly complex molecular machines we find in biology.
They dare not admit it, but deep down they know that the era of Darwinism is in its death throes. And its killer is modern science. Oh, the irony of it all.
‘Surely that must bring some insights!’
Surely ? Ha ha! That’s a good one !