Life’s Smallest Motor Shows It’s Design

A molecular machine which has the ability to carry cargo on cellular highways has been a major buzz in some creationist and intelligent design blogs. This new discovery entails some very interesting facts.

Science daily reports…

“The researchers created high-resolution snapshots of a protein motor, called kinesin, as it walked along a microtubule, which are tube-shaped structures that form a cell’s “skeleton.” The result is the closest look yet at the structural changes kinesin proteins undergo as they ferry molecules within cells.”

“We see for the first time how kinesin’s atomic-scale moving parts allow it to pull itself and its cargo along a microtubule,” says Ken Downing, a biophysicist with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. He conducted the research with postdoctoral fellow Charles Sindelar, now at Brandeis University.”

In PNAS Franck Fournio and Carolyn A. Moores make an interesting comment, “Thus the cell’s nanomachines have evolved to use ATP only when they can couple it to essential work.” Some say evolution has no objective, it’s mindless, but others say it’s goal is survival of the fittest so by allegedly creating the parts then fine tuning those parts for “essential work” would fit in their evolutionary framework.

However, life’s smallest motor shows, architecture, engineering, precision, and function which all fits the description of intelligence, namely God. The metaphysical explanation of evolution was just thrown in there because of what they believe, it really doesn’t contribute anything to the understanding of a protein that can shuttle cargo to various locations within the cell and assist with cell division.

Let’s put it this way, a mindless process cannot replace an intelligent engineer in the real world no matter how much time you give it, but in storytelling it can…Although in this case, the authors did not describe how this machine could have evolved but only assumed it did which is a “begging the question” answer.


7 thoughts on “Life’s Smallest Motor Shows It’s Design

  1. I do not see you giving any actual evidence for “life’s smallest motor” being designed. None at all.

    Evolution is not a metaphysical theory, it is a biological theory. This theory is not something you ‘believe’ in, that is not what scientists do, and your statement that evolution was just “thrown in” is actually quite an accusation. Can you actually prove this ?

  2. Very interesting, Michael. Thank-you.

    The design is evident. It must take a huge effort to ignore it.

    Interesting you refer to evolution as metaphysical explanation; Karl Popper concluded the same, saying in his book ‘Unended Quest’: ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory. but a metaphysical research programme…’

    A very perceptive analysis, I’d say.

    Certainly Evolution is a belief about the natural world, one many consider to be unsupported by the evidence, but one many scientists hold nonetheless.

    The belief is seemingly constantly ‘just thrown in’ in all fields; but then, it’s what Evolutionists will believe, isn’t it, no matter the evidence.

  3. Well Dom: show the evidence for design, if it is so evident to you. It isn’t at all evident to me, so could you be specific ? Michael isn’t, but perhaps you know more about the actual evidence for design … there is none provided here.

  4. “The design is evident. It must take a huge effort to ignore it.”

    In the same way that it is evident that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Just now I watched it sink into the ocean. I could actually see it move.

    Besides common sense, there is a lot of evidence that this is so. If the Earth revolved at high velocity—it would have to travel almost 1100 kph at the equator—everything would be thrown off from centrifugal force. If I dropped a ball from a high tower, it wouldn’t fall straight down as we all observe, but at an angle, because the Earth would have rotated during the fall. And there would be a constant high-velocity wind from the atmosphere getting dragged along. But hold, you say. There IS a constant wind—the prevailing westerlies, the jet stream. Sorry, Dom, that was a trap. If the Earth actually dragged the atmosphere as it rotated, then the wind would blow in the OPPOSITE direction from what it actually does. Besides that, Ptolemy 2000 years ago figured out—mathematically!—how the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth. His calculations were so accurate that astronomers predicted eclipses hundreds of years in advance. You can’t argue with mathematics.

    It must take a huge effort to ignore a stationary Earth. You have never yourself OBSERVED the Earth rotating. Admit it. You believe it because scientists tell you, and you suspend your God-given common sense and swallow their cockamamie story uncritically. To top it all off, the Bible tells us that the Sun goes around the Earth. Common sense PLUS evidence that all of us can plainly see PLUS the Bible. Good enough for me. What’s YOUR problem?

  5. Eelco, I don’t know what Dom’s evidence is, but here is the way that Stephen Meyer sees the evidence in his book Signature in the Cell.

    — All living organisms exhibit complex specified information.

    — Wherever we see an intelligence in operation, it produces complex specified information.

    — Ergo, living organisms must arise from an intelligence.

    Dom, please apply your creationist logic to this proposition. Eelco, please apply your scientific logic to it. Ready… set… GO!

  6. Dom: “Interesting you refer to evolution as metaphysical explanation; Karl Popper concluded the same, saying in his book ‘Unended Quest’: ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory. but a metaphysical research programme…'”

    Dom, Dom! A mere two years later, Popper had this to say:

    “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.” Karl Popper, “Natural Selecton and the Emergence of Mind,” Dialectica 32:339-355 (1978).

    Dom exemplifies what passes for creationist research. Never check your citations; if someone agrees with you, that’s good enough. Never update your research. Holy writ never changes, so why should anything else? Never quote an entire statement; the whole quote might destroy your point.[1] In fact, the author might even have had unkind things to say about your own view.[2]


    [1] The rest of Dom’s original quotation: “And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper, Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography.1976, pp 171-172.)

    [2] “[Darwin’s] theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached. (Popper, id., p 172)

  7. Olorin: ” A mere two years later, Popper had this to say: ‘I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection;'”

    Well, it didn’t take long for the Centralized Science Organization—a/k/a the Illuminati, a/k/a the Freemasons, a/k/a/ the Elders of Zion—to get their hooks into Karl Popper. It has the unmistakable stench of a conspiracy to force Popper to kowtow to the scientific orthodoxy. He was made to know which side his bread was buttered on, who controls the peer-review process he needed to continue his career.

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