Limits of Nanotechnology: The Molecular Motors!

On November 28, 2005 Dr. William A. Dembski wrote:

"Ask yourself, Why do biological systems exhibit molecular machines at the smallest level permissible by the properties of matter? “Evolution” provides less and less a convincing answer."

Dr. Dembski linked then to Molecular Motors (9 Nov. 2005)

That reminded me of my previous posting to Dr. D.:

"Discover how researchers interpret aspects that can be seen as products of a common pattern and design!"

At the end, the practical applying of how an organ works or the function of a pathway, will help us to mimic such primeval designs and their plasticity; like the next one, for which we have a recent update and still is on the making.

We design based on their inherent designs:

http://news.nanoapex.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5710

You can find a lot of earlier and related articles by posting in Google words like the next ones: gecko lizard attach, i.e.:

Robo-Gecko - Gecko Robots

You can also check another "reverse engineering" article at:

Douglas L. Smith, “TMI, Meet IST,” Engineering and Science (LXVIII:1/2), [summer] 2005, pp. 6-15.
http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS/articles/LXVIII1_2/IST.html

However, I can emphasize here my own expertise in the molecular field with a kick of genetic compatibility at the reproductive level.

To be able to see the link between "reverse engineering" and "intelligent design" we can also review the article by Jonathan Wells entitled:

Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute. PCID 3.1.2, November 2004
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf

In my work, I can see the fruitfulness of the perspective of "common design" in opposition to the Darwinian perspective of "common descent" as my search is for the differences between organisms at the molecular level and similarities between them at the biological level (read, its "genetic compatibility").

My own molecular "reverse engineering" looks for a species-specific target within a tissue-specific molecule in my molecular fight against obesity. Evolutionists tend to dismiss the existence of "species-specific" molecules or pathways, thus missing the view of such fruitful avenues of research.

The current Darwinian paradigm, by using a flawed logic does the opposite to that, as it strives to see similarities at the molecular level because of a presupposed "common descent". Surprisingly, at the same time Darwinism exaggerates the supposed differences between "genetically compatible" organisms because of this other preconceived idea that evolutionists 'must' find 'evidences' of new and incompatible 'species', which, they assume, are emerging all the time. On doing that, they ignore the thousands of already existent examples of the opposite.

"I find it telling that "evolution" (meaning the Darwinian mechanism of RM&NS) is often used in biology textbooks in a context where it could be replaced with "God" with no significant lessening of the scientific value"

(Aelfric at ARN)

A similar remark has been done recently brightly on the scientific press (in The Scientist):

"In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word - "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." (Dr. P. Skell)

As a graduate in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, in my research I need Genetics and Biochemistry, however I don’t need Darwinism, if you take Evolution as its synonym.

Just a practical example: Working in molecular biology of bacteria, the symbiotic bacteria with leguminous plants, I have analyzed plasmids which are like genetic modules containing programs for specific functions, i.e., nodulation of plants, antibiotic resistance, formation of surface structures, etc.

I have done selection of those bacteria to salinity to produce legumes in saline soils.

Darwinian people can say that by inserting a new plasmid in non symbiotic bacteria, then this bacteria “evolves” into a symbiotic one. Or that it “evolves” onto an antibiotic or saline resistant one. When you remove the plasmid, the bacteria turns back again to non symbiotic. When you remove the antibiotic or the salinity, many bacteria that were adapted to live only over such specific and altered environment, dies; few colonies survive and readapt to live back under normal conditions.

It seems that those colonies have an “agreement” to leave 5 % of them as the ‘backup guys’, if you know what I mean.

Events in nature like these ones can 'a posteriori' and using bad logic, be rationalized as 'examples' of “Darwinism”.

A similar example of misuse of examples and of words is when Eric Lander declared that yeast was “evolving” because it duplicated its full genome. Here, another natural event, polyploidy, common in the botanical kingdom, was again 'a posteriori' rationalized as an example of “Darwinism”, when it is not.

Bback to our bacteria, when we turn them back to nature out of the lab, those artificially mutated or more deeply altered molecules (plasmids) or individuals (microbial colonies) tend to dilute and soon disappear. In our engineered Rhizobia we need to reload them every season, as they disappear under the dominance of the native ones.

Here again, mental commitment is not the same as reproducible facts to be found in nature, not in vitro.

Darwinism tried to tie to itself the field of genetics 'a posteriori' as well, after many of the facts were already discovered. I most add that Darwinism prevented the initial progress of genetics, as the next link can prove it:

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWpaul.notes.html#fn18

Breeders active in promoting Mendel’s work were biologists generally affiliated with the USDA or state agricultural colleges and experiment stations and they aimed to combine practical public interests with theoretical science. “In sharp contrast with naturalists…” (read, Darwinists). The first mention of Mendel in a naturalist’s Darwinian journal was a dismissive comment by the editor of the Botanical Gazette, John Merle Coulter, in a review of the third edition of Liberty Hyde Bailey's Plant Breeding (Botanical Gazette, 1904, 37: 471-472). The American Naturalist was also unimpressed. Other than a passing reference in a Botanical Note of 1902, there is no mention of Mendelism until 1904, and then only in Charles Davenport's book reviews. Editorial notes and articles first appear in 1907.” (Mendel in America: Theory and Practice, 1900-1919, by D. B. Paul and B. A. Kimmelman, 1988, U. of Pennsylvania Press).

Likewise, because of a constant Darwinian insistence in ‘the origin of species’, meaning that new species can be originated from the older ones, the Darwinian concept of ‘speciation’ has prevented the progress of the study of variation or of varieties within genetically compatible groups of organisms. Examples of this are extremely abundant.

Evolution is deliberately blurring, until this day, the evident differences between varieties and species because it is 'convenient' for the Darwinian (Materialistic, Agnostic, Atheistic...) worldview.

So, people just studying variation and varieties within compatible groups of animals, because of how ‘oversold’ has been the Darwinian term of ‘speciation’ [which means precisely ‘the origin of new species’], those people concludes thinking that Darwinism is 'vital' for their studies [well, let me cry and smile at the same time here. As you are well aware, peer-reviewers of today reject any sort of non Darwinian research, no matter its quality].

I insist here and everywhere that such term of ‘speciation’ is in bad shape and is a ‘misleading’ one. When you read carefully the related literature on ‘speciation’ you end up concluding that what the authors are meaning is variation or the study of different varieties within genetically compatible organisms (or different "breeds", if you are talking about dogs).

Classic examples of the deliberate misuse of the term ‘speciation’ can be seen in the studies of birds, in which each case can be seen as evidence of variation only within their groups, like in finches, gulls, cranes, etc. The same can be said within fishes like the Gasterosteus, Cichlids, Xiphophorus, Lepomis, etc. In Mammals: Canis, Dolphins, Camels, etc. In insects: Laupala, Carabus, etc…

So, all genetic compatible related studies can be done with a better and practical use without any reference to Darwinism, as the statement of Bateson, excluded of any Darwinian context, can confirm it:

“Soon every science that deals with animals and plants will be teeming with discovery, made possible by Mendel's work.”

The real and practical progress was and is done thanks to Mendel’s work, not Darwin’s.

Neo-Darwinism was the Darwinists attempt to merge both, blurring until now the practical progress of genetic compatibility and variation within similar groups of organisms.

Other work that doesn't need Darwinism includes the microarray analysis of knock out mice. Using 'common design' to produce antiobesity targets which are tissue-specific (read adipocytes) and species-specific (read humans) with an Intelligent Design perspective!