Here is an article on a molecular motor that highly intelligent scientists with
modern technology, and existing molecular motors in nature as a guide,
still took *four years* to make.
Yet we are expected to believe that blind forces did it on their own,
not once but many times!
And the usual `designer substiture' Darwinian mechanisms of random
mutation and natural selection don't work at this level, as Bill Dembski
has pointed out:
"The irreducible complexity of such biochemical systems cannot be
explained by the Darwinian mechanism, nor indeed by any naturalistic
evolutionary mechanism proposed to date. Moreover, because irreducible
complexity occurs at the biochemical level, there is no more fundamental
level of biological analysis to which the irreducible complexity of
biochemical systems can be referred, and at which a Darwinian analysis in
terms of selection and mutation can still hope for success." (Dembski
W.A., "Science and Design", First Things, Vol. 86, October 1998, pp21-
27. http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html).
Note again the personnification of nature using the language of
Intelligent Design:
"Nature tends to conserve solutions," points out Dr Kelly, "it does not
solve ten similar problems in ten different ways. It finds a common
solution. So our molecular motor may help us understand natural molecular
motors in cells."
Steve
===================================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_441000/441670.stm
BBC Sci/Tech
Thursday, September 9, 1999 Published at 12:18 GMT 13:18 UK
Scientists make molecular motor
By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse It has just 78
atoms, took four years to build and it has a spindle that takes hours to
rotate but it could be the forerunner of a revolution.
Attempts by scientists to produce molecule-sized machines have produced
a toolbox of parts, gears, rotors, switches, turnstiles but no one has
produced a molecular motor, until now.
Two molecular motors are reported in the journal Nature.
One was constructed by Dr T Ross Kelly and colleagues of Boston College
in Massachusetts. One of his motivations was to understand the molecular
motors that are found in all forms of life.
"There are a lot of biological motors in nature," he told BBC News Online,
"muscles, sperm etc., but although biologists have studied them for many
decades they still do not understand how they work on a molecular level.
Now we may have a clue."
The diminutive motor consists of 78 atoms arranged in two molecules, a
three sided spindle composed of star-shaped molecules and a base plate
molecule on which it rests.
"It is a bit like a ratchet, it can turn one way but not the other," says Dr
Kelly.
Fundamental processes
The wheel gets the energy required to turn from a molecule called ATP.
This is the energy source of biological cells. ATP is a molecule with a lot of
internal energy which it can be persuaded to release.
Scientists say that understanding how the motor works will broaden our
understanding of many fundamental biological processes.
"Nature tends to conserve solutions," points out Dr Kelly, "it does not
solve ten similar problems in ten different ways. It finds a common
solution. So our molecular motor may help us understand natural molecular
motors in cells."
At the moment the motor is not much good for anything, except to
demonstrate a principle.
"It does not turn very quickly," he adds. "It takes several hours for the
three-spindled wheel to make one revolution. Our next step is to speed it
up."
The other molecular motor reported by Nature has been constructed by
German, Dutch and Japanese scientists.
Using a specially assembled carbon molecule, they have been able to make
part of it rotate in one direction, taking only four steps to make a complete
revolution.
This motor is not powered by ATP but by light and changes in
temperature.
[...]
BBC News (c)
===================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for
their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible
stories need not be true." (Gould S.J., Raup D.M., Sepkoski J.J., Jr.,
Schopf T.J.M., & Simberloff D.S., ", "The shape of evolution: a
comparison of real and random clades", Paleobiology, 1977, Vol. 3, pp34-
35)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------