Future Observations: Super-resolution technology

Microscope makers are going where no man has gone before! Within five to ten years this new designed technology is going to make it possible to see more images of phenomena at the molecular level.  However, we are not referring to electron microscopes rather we are talking about using light microscopes in real-time!

Diffraction limit has been thought for a very long time, an impossible task until now…Nature reveals in two articles promising news…

“For many years it was a source of frustration for biologists that the internal components of a cell were practically invisible to them.” wrote Kelly Rae Chi in her article, “Microscopy: Ever-increasing resolution. Researchers believed that the wavelength of light determined a fundamental limit to the resolution of optical microscopes.”

“In Finland in the 1990s, thought that, with the right lasers, he could activate a fluorescent spot and then shrink it by superimposing a larger, hollow beam of light to deplete all the light emission except for that at the centre of the spot.  He called the technique stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy.  Although many physicists were initially sceptical of Hell’s ideas, by 2000 he had used STED to produce the first nanoscale fluorescence images.”


“Super-resolution microscopy has blossomed since, allowing researchers to see cellular processes unfolding at nanometre scales.  “This is something that the field has desired since people first started looking through light microscopes,” says Jan Liphardt, a biophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.”

There is more methods being developed which includes compiling images of billions of fluorescent proteins, photo-activated localization microscopy (PALM), and “stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM), which uses what they call a photoswitchable probe or probes which temporally separates the overlapping images of individual molecules which boosts resolution to ten times better than the diffraction limit and so on.

It’s very nice to see no storytelling about Darwinian evolution and not only that but the new technology is a vital tool when observing the craftsmanship of God’s design in nature. It’s going to bring out details beyond our wildest dreams which is very beneficial for creationism but it’s also going to cause problems for evolution, expansion and more complexity in their storytelling will grow like leaps and bounds because of the detail of specialized complexity.

For some evolutionists, they feel when they have answered one question and five more questions pop up as a result is job security because the mystery leads to more mystery it never ends. As creationists and Christians, nature will be showing some awesome designs to learn from that were created by God, it’s the future for observations and more evidence in the microscopic world.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Future Observations: Super-resolution technology

  1. Michael’s drone: “Diffraction limit has been thought for a very long time, an impossible task until now…Nature reveals in two articles promising news…”

    Well, uit’s not exactly new news, is it? I’ve been reading about STEM for a year or two now. But, from your point of view, it is another example of stupid scientists being proven wrong about diffraction limits, isn’t it? You might think of the new technology this way: Now we can do better than God at seeing tiny things.

    MD: “It’s very nice to see no storytelling about Darwinian evolution and not only that but the new technology is a vital tool when observing the craftsmanship of God’s design in nature.”

    Or, depending upon your viewpoint, it will instead be a vital tool when observing the wonders of evolution. There is, however, this important difference:

    Evolution researchers will employ this new technology to study evolution and to generate new experiments, new hypotheses, and new applications, whereas NO CREATIONISTS WILL BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING WITH THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.

    MD: “For some evolutionists, they feel when they have answered one question and five more questions pop up as a result is job security because the mystery leads to more mystery it never ends.”

    It’s a good thing you are not a scientist, then. Besides having zero knowledge of the subject matter,[1] you haven’t the slightest idea of what science is all about. You seem to think it consists of blessing a preconceived idea and then turning off the Bunsen burners and retiring.

    Creationists, on the other hand, never do any research, because they already know all the answers. The strange thing is, the answer to every question is the same: “GOD DID IT.” Of course, this doesn’t really get you anywhere, or lead to any benefits to mankind.[2] Just smug smiles from a dark corner of ignorance.

    MD: “As creationists and Christians, nature will be showing some awesome designs to learn from….”

    See above. Creationists never “learn” anything. One only “learns” something when he finds that something does NOT match his expectations.

    ============
    [1] See Qualification Tests under “Exposed ’science’ of Man-Made Global Warming!” I notice you didn’t attempt to answer any of them. Fail.

    [2] See Olorin comment under “Intelligent Designed Biomaterials Is The Future” (Nov. 30), listing three advances in medicine from evolution research in the past few months alone.

  2. I love the shallow fall back of most Darwinists, because creationists know that God is the source we do not have a desire to learn. This shows the complete lack of understanding of Christianity.

    Pslam 8:3 “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;”

    We want to know more about the wonders of creation because it tells us more and more about the greatness of God.

    Ecclesiastes 3:1 “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:”

    It is a joyful thing to LEARN how everything functions and interacts with the whole of creation. We know that everything has a purpose and it is the purpose of science to learn what that is. Christians have been the driving force of real science for all of recorded time.

  3. mcoville:
    “Christians have been the driving force of real science for all of recorded time.”

    This is an utterly ridiculous statement, completely baseless, and insulting to a vast number of people who are not christians.

    Unless you define ‘real science’ to be something completely different from ‘science’. If you define ‘real science’ to be creationism, which is not science, then you are right.

    So how do you define ‘real science’, mcoville ?

  4. Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. (from wikipedia)

    I think that definition is close enough.

    You can start here for a list of Christians in science.

  5. mcoville:”You can start here for a list of Christians in science.”

    Mcoville’s train of thought has derailed, but he hasn’t noticed.

    First, he confuses “Christian” with “creationist.” The entire Catholic Church (2 billion souls and change) is not creationist. Almost every major protestant denomination is not creationist. (Baptists are of two minds.) The pentecostal and evangelical bodies which are officially creationist did not exist until they broke away from the major denominations in 1900-1920; unfortunately, their leaders had no formal education in liberal arts, science—or even in theology. What these groups shared, besides ignorance, was an anti-science attitude.[1]

    Second, although many active research scientists are in fact Christians,[2] none of them are creationist.[3] Certainly, no one has ever employed any creationist principles to produce or guide any scientific research whatsoever, in any field. You are trying to cloak yourself in a mantle that you have stolen from honest people.

    Don’t you ever wonder why real scientists sneer at creationism as “Lying for Jesus”?

    ==================
    [1] See, e.g., the highly acclaimed Bowler & Morus, Making Modern Science (U. Chicago Press 2005), esp. Ch. 15, “Science and Religion,” pp341-366. And Numbers, The Creationists (U.California Press 1993) [2d Ed forthcoming, Dec. 2009] And Garwood, Flat Earth (Thomas Dunne 2008).

    [2] Your Wikipedia reference lists scientists who lived when everyone in Europe was a Christian. Duh. More modernly, Ken Miller & Francis Collins come to mind. Father Ayala. There is a whole group scientists who consider science from a Christian perspective. You might look up the American Scientific Affiliation sometime. All of them accept evolution–in fact, the 3 named above push it strongly.

    [3] Well I’ll give you Michael Behe and scott Minnich. But neither of them has ever produced a single original research paper on any aspect of creationism or intelligent design.

  6. By the way, Michael, your review of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, promised four months ago, has not yet appeared. Did your nameless eminence grise desert you on this one? Can’t you think of anything more to say than that Meyer is very personable, and has a pleasing writing style? Nothing of any substance?

    Please step up the pace on this. My notes are getting cold.

  7. Olorin: your confusing creationists with young earth creationists. If someone says that God did not create the heavens and the earth, they are not Christians.

    “Don’t you ever wonder why real scientists sneer at creationism as “Lying for Jesus”?”. Real scientist do not, Darwinists do, and they obviously have a history of distorting words to get the meaning they want out of them, e.g. you.

  8. mcoville: “Olorin: your confusing creationists with young earth creationists. If someone says that God did not create the heavens and the earth, they [sic] are not Christians.”

    Mcoville’s train of thought derails again. A “creationist” is one who believes in “special creation”—that is, that the universe, and all that therein is, was created directly by divine decree, outside natural law. Young-earth creationism is a proper subset of creationism,[1] just as creationism as a whole is a proper subset of Christianity.

    One can very easily be a Christian without being a creationist, and most in fact are.[2] For example, the historical scientists in your list were not creationists, because they believed that God operates the universe through laws that we can understand.[3] Otherwise, they would not have tried to find these laws, would thay?

    =============
    [1] Others include old-earth, day-age, gap, progressive, omphalos, intelligent design, and more.

    [2] The Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution and cosmology. Again, as do most Protestant denominations.

    [3] Also, of course, many of the people who birthed modern science were Islamic scholars, not Christians at all.

  9. “Otherwise, they would not have tried to find these laws, would they?”, sure they would. God created those laws and Christians like to study all of God’s work.

    EVERY Christian, without exception, knows that God created the heavens and the earth. This is not a gray area. We may discuss His process of creation, but we do not doubt that He created it all.

    You can try and twist words all you like but this one is easy. Christians know God created and Christians have been involved in furthering science from the beginning of recorded history. It is only recent history that Darwinists and atheists have tried to push out the competition, I partially blame the large amounts of financing available for studies (you know, the whole love of money is the root of all evil thing).

  10. mcoville is still unable to understand the difference between Christians who accept the fact that God created using orderly natural law that we can understand, and creationists, who see God as a simple stage magician who poufed the universe into existence as an after-dinner trick.

    How dare you arrogate true scientists such as Albertus Magnus, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton to your dark cellar of willful ignorance?

    Chritian scientists observe, experiment, theorize, and test God’s laws. But NO ONE HAS EVER EMPLOYED CREATIONIST PRINCIPLES IN ANY ORIGINAL RESEARCH IN ANY SCIENTIFIC FIELD. Go ahead; search the archives of any scientific journal, or even of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research—search anywhere you like. The tree will be judged by its fruit. Creationism bears no fruit. but subsists on denying the work of others and feeding off gaps in knowledge.

    And by calling “Darwinists” atheists in a petty dichotomy. Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Francis Ayala and a multitude of others are active Christians who are also at the forefront of evolutionary research.

    Go back to your cellarr. Use any excuse you like. Steal the cloak of science for yourself. All I ask is that you do not help your children with their science homework.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s