Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nobel award for design of molecular machines


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!

'Surely that must bring some insights!' Surely ? Ha ha! That's a good one ! Axel
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. Truth Will Set You Free
semi OT:
"The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe... we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency... Our computer programs are essentially one-dimensional. The human genome operates in four dimensions. This is one the greatest testimonies to the creative brilliance of God available... I have a challenge for the evolutionist: Explain the origin of the genome!" The First Dimension: the DNA molecule The Second Dimension: the interaction network The Third Dimension: 3-D DNA architecture The Fourth Dimension: changes to the first three dimensions http://creation.com/four-dimensional-genome
Splatter and News, this may interest you:
A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos - Luke Barnes - video - uploaded Oct. 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvRMNprRIk
That's the badger. Why did I remember Oxford? Maybe reference to Sloan. Anyway, will add to pile... Thank you. Splatter
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:
A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos by Geraint F. Lewis, Luke A. Barnes Cambridge University Press (November 30, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610
Luke Barnes has a recent video interview as well as this following article in particular that may be of interest to you:
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws Fine-Tuning Conversations August 8, 2016 by lukebarnes I (Luke Barnes) had the pleasure recently of having at chat with Oxford University’s David Sloan, Co-Leader of the Consolidation of Fine-Tuning project in the Department of physics. We talked about fine-tuning, probability, and theory testing in physics. they’ve now been posted to YouTube. https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/08/08/fine-tuning-conversations/
also of interest
What to Read: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent life September 10, 2013 by lukebarnes I’ve spent a lot of time critiquing articles on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. I should really give the other side of the story. Below are some of the good ones, ranging from popular level books to technical articles. I’ve given my recommendations for popular cosmology books here. https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/what-to-read-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/
*ENV Splatter
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. Splatter
as to:
“.. . . 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.”
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!
Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction - JonathanM - September 2011 Excerpt: The bacterial flagellum represents not just a problem of irreducible complexity. Rather, the problem extends far deeper than that. What we are now observing is the existence of irreducibly complex systems within irreducibly complex systems. How random mutations, coupled with natural selection, could have assembled such a finely set-up system is a question to which I defy any Darwinist to give a sensible answer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/engineering_at_its_finest_bact050911.html Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe." Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered - December 3, 2012 Excerpt: Get a load of this -- a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli. If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,, Harvard's mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella. "Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath.... the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle." To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html Michael Behe's Challenge -- Past, Present, and Future - September 22, 2016 Excerpt: Did the Western nations solve Michael Behe's challenge? If so, they have a strange way of claiming success: “The proteins that form the bacterial flagellar system have no known homologs in eukaryotic cells. The eukaryotic flagellar [sic], based on a microtubule-containing axoneme, is vastly more complicated. In fact, the current estimate for the number of different proteins in the axoneme is ?425. In contrast, the archaeal flagellar system appears simpler than the bacterial one and can contain as few as 13 different proteins. As with the eukaryotic flagellar system, the archaeal one does not have homology with the bacterial one and must have arisen by means of convergent evolution.” Ah yes, convergent evolution again. But think about what they say here. The "vastly more complicated" eukaryotic flagellum has no known commonalities with the bacterial flagellum, and the bacterial flagellum has no homolog in the archaeal flagellum: "In archaeal flagellins, however, no homology has yet been found outside of the N-terminal domain with any bacterial or eukaryotic proteins." Do they show any common ancestry between these motors? None. Are we to believe, then, that blind processes happened upon three naturalistic miracles independently? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/michael_behes_c103159.html

Leave a Reply