The Very Innovative Smallest Rotary Motor

One of the most intriguing functions ever build inside of humans and animals, it’s known for nearly 100 percent efficiency with gear mismatches, powered by an elastic transmission which is vital for a high rate of coupled turnover under a load.  Quite amazingly, it combines the electrical, mechanical and chemical aspects of enzyme function!

Yes, it’s the world’s smallest rotary motor called; ATP synthase. Three German scientists had one of many papers published in this month’s Nature where it explains in part the level of efficiency through mismatched gears from top to bottom of the engine.

“The match implies 100% efficiency for the conversion of the Gibbs free energy of ATP hydrolysis into mechanical work performed on the elastically strained filament.  This is not surprising given the approximate thermodynamic equilibrium of the enzyme (long)-filament construct.”

“It is more informative to say that there is no slip between ATP hydrolysis in F1 and rotation in FO under the given conditions.2  Rotary slip in FOF1 in chloroplasts and bacteria has been detected, but only under single-site occupancy, that is, at nucleotide concentrations significantly below 100 nM.”

“The momentary torque can be larger (for example, during a particular power stroke) or smaller (during a kinetic dwell) than its equilibrium average.  This may account for the still puzzling independence of the torque from the ATP concentration in the nanomolar to millimolar range (see ref. 2 for a review).”

“It is worth mentioning that the other technique for determining the torque from the rate of rotation underestimates its magnitude because it neglects viscous flow coupling between the filament and the enzyme-supporting surface.”

It’s refreshing to see in this very detailed research work, where it’s not telling us in their black box, the rotary motor was engineered in light of evolution, because we see it. The ATP synthase has “intelligent” engineering, it’s concepts are found even in human made machines. The ATP synthase is mechanically perfect, while it’s specified complexity cannot be reduced and still function indicating it’s not a product of naturalism.


8 thoughts on “The Very Innovative Smallest Rotary Motor

  1. Yet another ‘it cannot have evolved naturally, so therefore it has to have been engineered by some supernatural entity’ type of argument, which has been done so often (for the human eye, for example). And of course here we go with ‘specified complexity’ again …

    I think this is just the same old argument for a new thing.

    Fine if you are surprised by things in nature, but do not jump to conclusions because YOU cannot come up with a scientific theory for what you see.

  2. Here we go again with the “ignorance of the gaps” theory that evolutionists love to live by.

    Just because a scientist says it was designed by an intelligent creator does not mean we stop studying how it works and what else it does.

    Just because an evolutionist likes to claim that it is better to simply say “I don’t know” and then fill in the gaps with words like “could have” or “impossibly” does not mean they have any better answer, in fact it means you enjoy having no direction to continue the study.

    Good article Michael.

  3. @mcoville:
    “Ignorance of the gaps ?”
    Lousy joke, I think. It is perfectly normal to admit you do not know something. I much prefer that to filling in stuff from one of the thousands of religions, usually the one you grew up with.
    If you do that, there is nothing to study anymore, as you already have all the “answers”. But real answers they are not, in my opinion.

  4. But thats the best part Eelco, I grew up with the religion of evolution. It was not until I was older and more educated that I recognized the work of the creator.

    Saying that God was involved is not the answer to how something works. Science still has the ability to probe deeper and find the answer. Just because I knew that a computer programmer had made a program that allowed me to operate my computer did not stop me from learning how the computer code worked. I now have even more appreciation for the talents of those programmers that I know how computer code is put together.

    If I was like most computer users, similar to evolutionist scientists, I would just be happy playing solitary and saying “I don’t know how it works but it does, and I will only look at the computer code that effects what I am doing”.

  5. @mcoville:
    Evolution is *not* a religion. It really gets tedious that people keep on saying this sort of nonsense.
    Evolution is science, nothing more, nothing less.

  6. Another very interesting post, Michael. Interesting, too, to note how Eelco, a confirmed Evolutionist, just completely blanks the logical implications of the argument.

    If something logically cannot have originated or developed via natural mechanisms, then, logically, naturalistic explanations are rendered inadequate and one needs to look elsewhere.

    Its ‘the same old argument’ that Evolutionists just refuse to concede because of their dedication to Naturalistic philosophy; leaving them having to evade logic in order to maintain their dedication to Naturalism. Just one more example of how in reality Naturalism is illogical, anti-scientific intellectual suicide.

    The recognition something cannot have originated or developed via natural mechanisms is not about jumping to conclusions; it is about applying logic.

    It is Evolutionists who tend to jump to unwarranted conclusions about things. I.e. ‘junk DNA’ which is not junk. They say “I don’t know, therefore it must be evidence of Evolution.”

    But Evolutionary theory is not science; it is a fanciful idea posited in support of a particular view of life, being that Nature is all, which is certainly a religious view. Both the idea and the philosophy are religious in nature and, further, neither has any basis in empirical science or any relation to reason, logic or the reality of human experience.

    Evolutionists having to evade conclusive, self-evident logic as they do is just one way in which this is seen to be so.

  7. @Dom:
    “a confirmed Evolutionist”
    That’s funny … what is that supposed to be ??

    “If something logically cannot have originated or developed via natural mechanisms”
    You’ve not proven that statement … at all!
    Who says it cannot ? Because we humans haven’t figured it out yet ?

    The rest of your blurb is pretty much nonsense to me … for example, you say:
    “They say “I don’t know, therefore it must be evidence of Evolution.””
    No, if a scientist says “I don’t know”, then he simply means that, and simply does not know indeed. He/she won’t say it is therefore evolution or anything else … he/she leaves it open!

  8. Hi Eelco.

    A confirmed Evolutionist is someone who has confirmed they are an Evolutionist.

    Re. proving the assertion that there are some things cannot logically have originated or developed via natural mechanisms, it has been done a number of times through the application of logic gernerally and mathematics particularly. This book is a good introduction –

    And I didn’t say that scientists say, “I don’t know, therefore it must be evidence of Evolution.” I said that’s what Evolutionists say. Your confusion stems, I suggest, from your persistent disregard for the fact that not all scientists are Evolutionists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s