Intelligent Design

RIKEN’s 10-minute antidote to atheism: see for yourself

Spread the love

I recently received a message from someone who had a fascinating video on transcription, which he wanted to share with people he knew. The video, titled “The Central Dogma,” was produced by the RIKEN Omics Science Center for the exhibition titled ‘Beyond DNA’ held at National Science Museum of Japan, and can also be viewed here. Readers are invited to form their own conclusions. Any further comment on my part would be superfluous: the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words was never truer than for the video you are about to watch. Here’s the Youtube video:

30 Replies to “RIKEN’s 10-minute antidote to atheism: see for yourself

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Amazing video. It screams advanced intelligence and design.

  2. 2
    ringo says:

    That was amazing! It absolutely leaves me in awe to see God’s handiwork. Natural selection acting on random mutations! Are you kidding me! Give credit where credit is due!

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Wow!

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    nice video, but let’s just remember this is an oversimplified description of the real thing.

  5. 5
    mrcroup says:

    Over my head and complex, so God!

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    VJT: Another useful animation. You may want to embed using the TV symbol and the YouTube ID, ygpqVr7_xs. The spaceship-factory style reminds us of just how advanced this is as a manufacturing process. We need to ponder the FSCO/I involved and what that is pointing to — remember, the details have to be just as correct as the overall architecture, on all scales. This is serious design here, so far beyond the plausible reach of blind chance and mechanical necessity based searches in config spaces that the need for advanced design to reasonably explain it should be patent. But, if you undermine first principles of reason, then grossly inadequate causes can be perceived as good enough. Therein lies a big challenge. KF

  7. 7
    vjtorley says:

    Hi kairosfocus,

    Done! I’ve embedded the Youtube version of the video, as you suggested. Thanks for the tip.

  8. 8
    awstar says:

    nice video, but let’s just remember this is an oversimplified description of the real thing.

    The simulation of the mechanical processes is amazing in itself. What must the communication simulation showing the necessary orchestration taking place of all the supporting events and players look like, especially in a crowded environment of a single cell within a 100 trillion cell organism? It would probably make the communication activity in the largest city on the planet sound like the proverbial chirping crickets on a cold winters night.

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    Nah… Mapou. The watchmaker got his sight back, and got the necessary info from an alien belonging to an advanced civilisation. From a multiworld.

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    It’s clear you guys aren’t familiar with the wonders of REAL modern scientific research.

    Paging Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins… Paging Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins…. (not to speak of Messrs Meier, Dennett, Carroll et al. And Uncle Tom Cobley, of course).

  11. 11

    Here are a few suggestions for the atheists looking at this video:

    1. Before you watch the video, pour yourself a nice glass of wine or other adult beverage of your choice.
    2. Watch the video while sipping.
    3. If you make it through the video without spilling your adult beverage, great … now take a few deep breaths.
    4. Do your rant about “they’re shoving that religion crap down my throat.”
    5. A few more deep breaths and another glass or two of the favorite adult beverage.

    Now this is where it gets really … really hard.

    6. If you are calmed down, then repeat steps 1-5 above – else repeat steps 1-5 above until you have calmed down somewhat.
    7. Ask yourself the following questions:
    “If this animation is mostly accurate in describing what is happening even as I sit here … what are the implications to me personally? What are the implications of this animation to my world view?”
    8. Let this whole episode simmer within you for a respectable amount of time. Results may vary.

    Extra credit.

    If you are ready for more, then do:

    9. Repeat steps 1-8 above, only this time watch the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbycQf1TbM0
    10. If after a reasonable time (days, weeks or even months)you experience no noticeable effects of the above 9 steps, then drink much … much more of your favorite adult beverage and continue watching Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    awstar

    The simulation of the mechanical processes is amazing in itself. What must the communication simulation showing the necessary orchestration taking place of all the supporting events and players look like, especially in a crowded environment of a single cell within a 100 trillion cell organism? It would probably make the communication activity in the largest city on the planet sound like the proverbial chirping crickets on a cold winters night.

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    Was this video produced by a bunch of ignorant folks who don’t understand ‘n-D evo’? Why did they make such a propagandistic animation trying to force the rest of us to believe that the biological systems are so complex and sophisticated? What is their agenda? Is there any factual evidence to support this video? Is it peer-reviewed?

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    ayearningforpublius #11

    Can’t stop laughing out loud

    Really funny
    Thanks

  15. 15
    Dionisio says:

    ayearningforpublius #11

    Suggestions for step 1: Chianti Classico or Rioja Crianza

    Default drink for conclusion of step 10: Kool-Aid

  16. 16

    Serious question here.
    I know this is just an animation, but someone tell me why it’s not an actual video from some sort of microscope or wiz bang gadget? Is it because what’s happening in the cell lies outside current visual technology? If so, then what is the basis for constructing the animation? What indirect means provides the basis for such an animation?

    Gosh … that was 4 questions wasn’t it?

  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    Here’s another video from RIKEN

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZNcFTRX9i0Y?rel=0

  18. 18
    Graham2 says:

    what is the basis for constructing the animation?

    Exactly. I will assume the basic point is correct, but who invented all that CGI ? All those lovely machine-like things. I think reality is far messier, and its animations like this that play right into the hands of the creationists.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    “its animations like this that play right into the hands of the creationists”

    LOL,,, Its a conspiracy I tell you!!! Creationists sticking all those molecular machines in cells like that just to make Darwinists look bad! 🙂

    We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.
    But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    (Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)

  20. 20
    Eric Anderson says:

    Too bad they referred to it as the “Central Dogma” — an idea that has been responsible for a fair amount of misunderstanding over the years. Could have just called it protein synthesis, or something like that.

    —-

    Graham2:

    I know you like to point out that things are messy, but it is unclear what your point is. Are you arguing that because things are messy then they don’t evidence design? And by “messy” presumably you are referring to the facts that: (i) lots of other processes are taking place simultaneously in the cell (which by any rational approach would increase the impression of design), and (ii) many processes in the cell occur in a stochastic, rather than a definite 1:1 streamlined fashion (which by any rational approach would also impress the objective observer that a stochastic mechanism could be engineered to achieve a definite singular outcome in so many situations).

    So, what is you point with the “messiness” of cellular processes?

  21. 21
    Graham2 says:

    EA: Im not denying any details of the process, but the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides, all proceeding in a nice, regular, stately manner, just like the machines we are familiar with.

    Ive no idea what they would look like in reality, (if they ‘look’ at all) but I presume (based on some actual images) that their motions would be extremely chaotic, completely lacking (obvious) purpose. I repeat, Im not denying the general points being made, but the appearance seems completely unrealistic. Its a perception thing.

  22. 22
    scordova says:

    , but the appearance seems completely unrealistic.

    If anything, it understates the difficulty of what is going on. There is a lot of thermal and quantum noise. It is like a tornado in the cell with all the machines miraculously resisting the disordering battering of Brownian motion. Further where are the guidance and propulsion systems for these components? If Brownian motion provides some of the “propulsion”, how is guidance and timing and traffic management accomplished?

    The video said the introns are un-necessary. That’s not exactly true. They may not be used by the ribosome to code the protein amino acids, but they may have regulatory significance in coordinating the process. I consider that the one undesirable aspect of the video, it’s treatment of introns a unnecessary junk.

    Ive no idea what they would look like in reality, (if they ‘look’ at all) but I presume (based on some actual images) that their motions would be extremely chaotic, completely lacking (obvious) purpose.

    They are only superficially chaotic, if they are actually chaotic with no directionality, you’d be dead!

  23. 23
    DavidD says:

    Graham2: “Im not denying any details of the process, but the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides, all proceeding in a nice, regular, stately manner, just like the machines we are familiar with.” & ” . . but the appearance seems completely unrealistic.”

    This is how the true art of teaching is masterfully accomplished, but means of illustrations from familiar situations. If this video were invented for the purpose of strictly promoting evolution theory, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of you or others.

    Scordova: “If anything, it understates the difficulty of what is going on.”

    Precisely. It doesn’t begin to explain or express the true meaning of what goes on in a tiny complex nano-machine level and it never claims to. All it accomplishes is explaining through visuals what the system does accomplish on an extremely slowed down level, but as we know, the reality is that such systems work on a faster than supercomputer speed.

    The funny thing is, you know full well that all the Evos actually do get this, but resent it. And though they do get it, they will never admit this publicly. It’s almost an unwritten rule or code of silence they follow when participating in debate.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Where did such, such, such “Creationist porn” videos come from . . . shouldn’t they be banned as religious propaganda?

    H’mm, try about 60 years worth of molecular biology research, and mix in several Nobel Prizes along the way.

    Then, add technologies that begin to build on that growing insight and the need to shift biology courses in College and High school in that light, to reflect those facts.

    Oops, kids just are not going to read reams of dry and complex, highly confusing formulae and worse names, what do we do?

    Use scientific visualisation and animation, that’s what.

    Whoops, that gives sharp point to what those Creationists and IDiots are talking about when they discuss functionally specific complex organisation and information.

    So, the likes of XVIVO — which of course intellectual property stuff was used to ban from “abuse” by those nasty “Creationists” . . . especially the ones in “cheap tuxedos.” (Remember how they tried to see if the sequence in Expelled was copied, only to realise nope it was a roll yer own with different angles etc?)

    But also, the knowledge base is now widespread so there are any number of animations out there.

    The reaction to this one (which I remember seeing years ago and not liking as it was a bit too space-ships for my taste) shows that the point is hitting home.

    But in fact the protein synthesis sequence has been in animations for years and has appeared here at UD many, many times in many ways. My favourite is Vuk Nikolic’s animation, which has been featured and headlined here at UD any number of times over the past few years.

    Long ago, there was a nice clay animation simple sequence that showed much the same point, and who can forget Wikipedia’s beautiful image of the Ribosome in action with the mRNA NC tape running through and the protein being assembled AA by AA?

    And of course we haven’t got into the far more complex issue of the self-replication process of the cell, which implements a von Neumann Self Replicator.

    The videos etc are simplified, but he point hey make is very much on target, there is a world of technology in the cell that dwarfs anything we have done and makes our automation look primitive.

    Nigh on thirty years ago, here is Dr Michael Denton in Evolution, a Theory in Crisis:

    To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

    We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours . . . .

    Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . .

    [Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. Cf the up to date discussion in Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.]

    Time to face facts, folks.

    KF

    PS: VJT, welcome.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    G2: guess why “the machines in the video looked like nice manufactured products, complete with lettering on the sides.” Yup, you got it, you just made a design inference on FSCO/I. Congratulations, and welcome to the world of the design inference on empirically reliable sign. KF

  26. 26
    Dionisio says:

    18 Graham2

    what is the basis for constructing the animation?

    Exactly. I will assume the basic point is correct, but who invented all that CGI ? All those lovely machine-like things. I think reality is far messier, and its animations like this that play right into the hands of the creationists.

    ok, first let’s take a quick look at the grammar:

    “…and its animations like this that…”

    probably means:

    “…and it’s animations like this that…”

    I think reality is far messier,…

    Please, see comment #4, i.e. 14 comments before yours 😉

    who invented all that CGI ? All those lovely machine-like things.

    Please, see comment #13, i.e. 5 comments before yours 😉

    The answer to your question might be RIKEN, which apparently is one of the many ID agitprop agents the DI has all over the world.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Graham2 is not the only Darwinist who would like to see the cell look a lot less ‘purposeful’ than it is turning out to be. In this article by Jonathan Wells from a few months ago, Darwinists, trying to counter the impression of Design that the animation ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ created, admitted to trying, in a new animation, to make the cell look as chaotic as possible,,

    Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells April 17, 2014
    Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by

    barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.

    But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84521.html

    As to what molecular machines really look. and act. like, it seems the videos showing these machines to be ‘bumpy’, and showing their motion as ‘barely constrained randomness’, are gross misrepresentations of what is actually going on in the cell, and that the ‘smoothness’ in the current video in the OP may be far closer to the truth than we realize. To make my case for ‘smoothness’ rather than ‘barely constrained randomeness’, here are a few pertinent points of evidence.

    First, it is important to note that the atomic model, which is the basis for inferring that the molecular machines are ‘bumpy’ instead of smooth, is basically a fallacious 19th, and early twentieth, century construct that has drastically changed from the ‘bumpy billiard ball’ model to a far smoother ‘quantum cloud’ model,,,

    History of the Atom – timeline image
    http://wsc11sci.wikispaces.com.....istory.png

    “Atoms are not things”
    Werner Heisenberg

    For anyone who still believes that atoms are composed of little billiard ball type particles (i.e. Reductive Materialism as it was conceived of by ancient Greeks and was only recently overturned last century), the following images will cure you of that false materialistic notion:

    Photographs of atoms, produced by the scanning tunnel microscope
    http://physics.unipune.ernet.i...../image.gif
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c.....cover7.tif
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c...../stm15.jpg

    Some materialists may claim that it is still OK to use variations of the materialistic billiard ball model when constructing models of protein macro-molecules, and when constructing models of molecular machines, such as the following ‘bumpy’ representations of protein macro-molecule and molecular machine,,

    Model of a portion of a typical protein molecule
    http://njscuba.net/zzz_artifacts/protein_1.gif

    F1-ATPase – model
    http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/p.....ATPase.jpg

    But are these ‘bumpy billiard ball’ models of proteins macro-molecules and molecular machines accurate and fair representations of what proteins and molecular machines actually look like? or are they false representations? i.e. Is a more accurate representation of proteins and molecular machines to be had by a ‘smooth’ quantum model?? I hold that a smooth quantum model is a more accurate representation of what is going on in the cell:

    Myosin Coherence
    Excerpt: Quantum physics and molecular biology are two disciplines that have evolved relatively independently. However, recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging. Living systems have mastered the making and breaking of chemical bonds, which are quantum mechanical phenomena. Absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfers through biological polymers (e.g. DNA or proteins) are all quantum mechanical effects.
    http://www.energetic-medicine......Page1.html

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    To try to make my contention for ‘smoothness’ in the cell more concrete, first it is important to note that quantum entanglement/information resides along the entirety of a protein molecule (and of a DNA molecule but we will leave that aside for now),,,

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
    http://www.scimednet.org/quant.....d-protein/

    Moreover, protein folding is found to be a quantum process, and is not a classical process that is driven by random Brownian motion as the materialist holds,,,

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    But as they say, seeing is believing. Here is a ‘Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body’, and I can see no ‘bumpiness’ in the photograph of the molecular machine as the models and animations suggested:

    Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg

    As to the contention of materialists that the motion of molecular machines are ‘jittery’, well the motion of a flagellum, and other molecular machines, are found to be governed by quantum principles not by classical principles:

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
    Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

    Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011
    Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126

    Moreover, the way in which proteins, which are separated in the cell, communicate with each other is found to be a precisely controlled quantum/photonic process, and communication in the cell is not mediated primarily by proteins ‘randomly colliding into each other’ by Brownian motion,,,

    Cellular Communication through Light
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0005086

    The Real Bioinformatics Revolution – Proteins and Nucleic Acids ‘Singing’ to One Another?
    Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1,000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions.,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRea.....lution.php

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.
    – per light association

    Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life – Jan. 16, 2014
    Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz’ team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
    This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
    So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
    This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
    “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,” Markelz said. “Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don’t get any sustained sound.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....084838.htm

    Proteins ‘ring like bells’ – June 2014
    Excerpt: As far back as 1948, Erwin Schrödinger—the inventor of modern quantum mechanics—published the book “What is life?”
    In it, he suggested that quantum mechanics and coherent ringing might be at the basis of all biochemical reactions. At the time, this idea never found wide acceptance because it was generally assumed that vibrations in protein molecules would be too rapidly damped.
    Now, scientists at the University of Glasgow have proven he was on the right track after all.
    Using modern laser spectroscopy, the scientists have been able to measure the vibrational spectrum of the enzyme lysozyme, a protein that fights off bacteria. They discovered that this enzyme rings like a bell with a frequency of a few terahertz or a million-million hertz. Most remarkably, the ringing involves the entire protein, meaning the ringing motion could be responsible for the transfer of energy across proteins.
    The experiments show that the ringing motion lasts for only a picosecond or one millionth of a millionth of a second. Biochemical reactions take place on a picosecond timescale and the scientists believe that evolution has optimised enzymes to ring for just the right amount of time. Any shorter, and biochemical reactions would become inefficient as energy is drained from the system too quickly. Any longer and the enzyme would simple oscillate forever: react, unreact, react, unreact, etc. The picosecond ringing time is just perfect for the most efficient reaction.
    These tiny motions enable proteins to morph quickly so they can readily bind with other molecules, a process that is necessary for life to perform critical biological functions like absorbing oxygen and repairing cells.
    The findings have been published in Nature Communications.
    Klaas Wynne, Chair in Chemical Physics at the University of Glasgow said: “This research shows us that proteins have mechanical properties that are highly unexpected and geared towards maximising efficiency. Future work will show whether these mechanical properties can be used to understand the function of complex living systems.”
    http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_334344_en.html

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Needless to say, that certainly does not sound like protein molecules randomly colliding into each other as the materialists would like to believe!

    Of related note:

    Proteins Conduct Electricity – November 25, 2012
    Excerpt: “The team showed that the protein could carry large currents, equivalent to a human hair carrying one amp. The team also discovered that current flow could be regulated in much the same way as transistors, the tiny devices driving computers and smartphones, work but on a smaller scale: the proteins are only a quarter of the size of current silicon based transistors.”
    The finding represents a leap forward in measurement at the nano scale. “Prior to this work, measurement of millions, if not billions of proteins was only possible, so losing crucial details of how an individual molecule functions.” The team used scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) to read the electronics of a single molecule of cytochrome b562, a protein just 5 nanometers (billions of a meter) long.
    http://crev.info/2012/11/prote.....ectricity/

    Amazing!

    But what SHOULD trouble materialists the most in all this is that quantum entanglement conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..)

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    That quantum entanglement should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    Verse and Music:

    Luke 23:42–43
    And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

    Shatter Me Featuring Lzzy Hale – Lindsey Stirling
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49tpIMDy9BE

  30. 30
    tjguy says:

    My guess is that this is slowed down so we can see and get a shallow understanding of what is really going on.

    Does anyone know just how fast all that might take? The video was 10 minutes, but my guess would be seconds.

    Just curious.

    That would have been an interesting fact to put in the video.

    I understand Graham’s point. I too was taken back by the lego-like machines. I have seen other animations that try and show the machines a bit more lifelike and they aren’t smooth sleek machines. However, they are built to do the job. The purpose of the machines is not to look cool in the eyes of 21st century humans, but to accomplish the job they were designed for so their “looks” really isn’t a big deal.

Leave a Reply